Trying to pick the best AI copywriting tool? An AI copywriting tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI copywriting tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
Learning to rank
Learning to rank (LTR) or machine-learned ranking (MLR) is the application of machine learning, often supervised, semi-supervised or reinforcement learning, in the construction of ranking models for information retrieval and recommender systems. Training data may, for example, consist of lists of items with some partial order specified between items in each list. This order is typically induced by giving a numerical or ordinal score or a binary judgment (e.g. "relevant" or "not relevant") for each item. The goal of constructing the ranking model is to rank new, unseen lists in a similar way to rankings in the training data. == Applications == === In information retrieval === Ranking is a central part of many information retrieval problems, such as document retrieval, collaborative filtering, sentiment analysis, and online advertising. A possible architecture of a machine-learned search engine is shown in the accompanying figure. Training data consists of queries and documents matching them together with the relevance degree of each match. It may be prepared manually by human assessors (or raters, as Google calls them), who check results for some queries and determine relevance of each result. It is not feasible to check the relevance of all documents, and so typically a technique called pooling is used — only the top few documents, retrieved by some existing ranking models are checked. This technique may introduce selection bias. Alternatively, training data may be derived automatically by analyzing clickthrough logs (i.e. search results which got clicks from users), query chains, or such search engines' features as Google's (since-replaced) SearchWiki. Clickthrough logs can be biased by the tendency of users to click on the top search results on the assumption that they are already well-ranked. Training data is used by a learning algorithm to produce a ranking model which computes the relevance of documents for actual queries. Typically, users expect a search query to complete in a short time (such as a few hundred milliseconds for web search), which makes it impossible to evaluate a complex ranking model on each document in the corpus, and so a two-phase scheme is used. First, a small number of potentially relevant documents are identified using simpler retrieval models which permit fast query evaluation, such as the vector space model, Boolean model, weighted AND, or BM25. This phase is called top- k {\displaystyle k} document retrieval and many heuristics were proposed in the literature to accelerate it, such as using a document's static quality score and tiered indexes. In the second phase, a more accurate but computationally expensive machine-learned model is used to re-rank these documents. === In other areas === Learning to rank algorithms have been applied in areas other than information retrieval: In machine translation for ranking a set of hypothesized translations; In computational biology for ranking candidate 3-D structures in protein structure prediction problems; In recommender systems for identifying a ranked list of related news articles to recommend to a user after he or she has read a current news article. == Feature vectors == For the convenience of MLR algorithms, query-document pairs are usually represented by numerical vectors, which are called feature vectors. Such an approach is sometimes called bag of features and is analogous to the bag of words model and vector space model used in information retrieval for representation of documents. Components of such vectors are called features, factors or ranking signals. They may be divided into three groups (features from document retrieval are shown as examples): Query-independent or static features — those features, which depend only on the document, but not on the query. For example, PageRank or document's length. Such features can be precomputed in off-line mode during indexing. They may be used to compute document's static quality score (or static rank), which is often used to speed up search query evaluation. Query-dependent or dynamic features — those features, which depend both on the contents of the document and the query, such as TF-IDF score or other non-machine-learned ranking functions. Query-level features or query features, which depend only on the query. For example, the number of words in a query. Some examples of features, which were used in the well-known LETOR dataset: TF, TF-IDF, BM25, and language modeling scores of document's zones (title, body, anchors text, URL) for a given query; Lengths and IDF sums of document's zones; Document's PageRank, HITS ranks and their variants. Selecting and designing good features is an important area in machine learning, which is called feature engineering. == Evaluation measures == There are several measures (metrics) which are commonly used to judge how well an algorithm is doing on training data and to compare the performance of different MLR algorithms. Often a learning-to-rank problem is reformulated as an optimization problem with respect to one of these metrics. Examples of ranking quality measures: Mean average precision (MAP); DCG and NDCG; Precision@n, NDCG@n, where "@n" denotes that the metrics are evaluated only on top n documents; Mean reciprocal rank; Kendall's tau; Spearman's rho. DCG and its normalized variant NDCG are usually preferred in academic research when multiple levels of relevance are used. Other metrics such as MAP, MRR and precision, are defined only for binary judgments. Recently, there have been proposed several new evaluation metrics which claim to model user's satisfaction with search results better than the DCG metric: Expected reciprocal rank (ERR); Yandex's pfound. Both of these metrics are based on the assumption that the user is more likely to stop looking at search results after examining a more relevant document, than after a less relevant document. == Approaches == Learning to Rank approaches are often categorized using one of three approaches: pointwise (where individual documents are ranked), pairwise (where pairs of documents are ranked into a relative order), and listwise (where an entire list of documents are ordered). Tie-Yan Liu of Microsoft Research Asia has analyzed existing algorithms for learning to rank problems in his book Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval. He categorized them into three groups by their input spaces, output spaces, hypothesis spaces (the core function of the model) and loss functions: the pointwise, pairwise, and listwise approach. In practice, listwise approaches often outperform pairwise approaches and pointwise approaches. This statement was further supported by a large scale experiment on the performance of different learning-to-rank methods on a large collection of benchmark data sets. In this section, without further notice, x {\displaystyle x} denotes an object to be evaluated, for example, a document or an image, f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} denotes a single-value hypothesis, h ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot )} denotes a bi-variate or multi-variate function and L ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle L(\cdot )} denotes the loss function. === Pointwise approach === In this case, it is assumed that each query-document pair in the training data has a numerical or ordinal score. Then the learning-to-rank problem can be approximated by a regression problem — given a single query-document pair, predict its score. Formally speaking, the pointwise approach aims at learning a function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} predicting the real-value or ordinal score of a document x {\displaystyle x} using the loss function L ( f ; x j , y j ) {\displaystyle L(f;x_{j},y_{j})} . A number of existing supervised machine learning algorithms can be readily used for this purpose. Ordinal regression and classification algorithms can also be used in pointwise approach when they are used to predict the score of a single query-document pair, and it takes a small, finite number of values. === Pairwise approach === In this case, the learning-to-rank problem is approximated by a classification problem — learning a binary classifier h ( x u , x v ) {\displaystyle h(x_{u},x_{v})} that can tell which document is better in a given pair of documents. The classifier shall take two documents as its input and the goal is to minimize a loss function L ( h ; x u , x v , y u , v ) {\displaystyle L(h;x_{u},x_{v},y_{u,v})} . The loss function typically reflects the number and magnitude of inversions in the induced ranking. In many cases, the binary classifier h ( x u , x v ) {\displaystyle h(x_{u},x_{v})} is implemented with a scoring function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} . As an example, RankNet adapts a probability model and defines h ( x u , x v ) {\displaystyle h(x_{u},x_{v})} as the estimated probability of the document x u {\displaystyle x_{u}} has higher quality than x v {\displaystyle x_{v}} : P u , v ( f ) = CDF ( f ( x u ) − f ( x v ) ) , {\displaystyle P_{u,v}(f)={\text{CDF}
AI Analytics Tools Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026
Comparing the best AI analytics tool? An AI analytics tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI analytics tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Apertium
Apertium is a free/open-source rule-based machine translation platform. It is free software and released under the terms of the GNU General Public License. == Overview == Apertium is a transfer-based machine translation system, which uses finite state transducers for all of its lexical transformations, and Constraint Grammar taggers as well as hidden Markov models or Perceptrons for part-of-speech tagging / word category disambiguation. A structural transfer component is responsible for word movement and agreement; most Apertium language pairs up until now have used "chunking" or shallow transfer rules, though newer pairs use (possibly recursive) rules defined in a Context-free grammar. Many existing machine translation systems available at present are commercial or use proprietary technologies, which makes them very hard to adapt to new usages. Apertium code and data is free software and uses a language-independent specification, to allow for the ease of contributing to Apertium, more efficient development, and enhancing the project's overall growth. At present (December 2020), Apertium has released 51 stable language pairs, delivering fast translation with reasonably intelligible results (errors are easily corrected). Being an open-source project, Apertium provides tools for potential developers to build their own language pair and contribute to the project. == History == Apertium originated as one of the machine translation engines in the project OpenTrad, which was funded by the Spanish government, and developed by the Transducens research group at the Universitat d'Alacant. It was originally designed to translate between closely related languages, although it has recently been expanded to treat more divergent language pairs. To create a new machine translation system, one just has to develop linguistic data (dictionaries, rules) in well-specified XML formats. Language data developed for it (in collaboration with the Universidade de Vigo, the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya and the Universitat Pompeu Fabra) currently support (in stable version) the Arabic, Aragonese, Asturian, Basque, Belarusian, Breton, Bulgarian, Catalan, Crimean Tatar, Danish, English, Esperanto, French, Galician, Hindi, Icelandic, Indonesian, Italian, Kazakh, Macedonian, Malaysian, Maltese, Northern Sami, Norwegian (Bokmål and Nynorsk), Occitan, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Sardinian, Serbo-Croatian, Silesian, Slovene, Spanish, Swedish, Tatar, Ukrainian, Urdu, and Welsh languages. A full list is available below. Several companies are also involved in the development of Apertium, including Prompsit Language Engineering, Imaxin Software and Eleka Ingeniaritza Linguistikoa. The project has taken part in the 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 editions of Google Summer of Code and the 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 editions of Google Code-In. == Translation methodology == This is an overall, step-by-step view how Apertium works. The diagram displays the steps that Apertium takes to translate a source-language text (the text we want to translate) into a target-language text (the translated text). Source language text is passed into Apertium for translation. The deformatter removes formatting markup (HTML, RTF, etc.) that should be kept in place but not translated. The morphological analyser segments the text (expanding elisions, marking set phrases, etc.), and looks up segments in the language dictionaries, returning dictionary forms and tags for all matches. In pairs that involve agglutinative morphology, including a number of Turkic languages, a Helsinki Finite State Transducer (HFST) is used. Otherwise, an Apertium-specific finite state transducer system called lttoolbox, is used. The morphological disambiguator (the morphological analyser and the morphological disambiguator together form the part of speech tagger) resolves ambiguous segments (i.e., when there is more than one match) by choosing one match. Apertium uses Constraint Grammar rules (with the vislcg3 parser) for most of its language pairs. Retokenisation uses a finite state transducer to match sequences of lexical units and may reorder or translate tags (often used for translating idiomatic expressions into something that more approaches the target language grammar) Lexical transfer looks up disambiguated source-language basewords to find their target-language equivalents (i.e., mapping source language to target language). For lexical transfer, Apertium uses an XML-based dictionary format called bidix. Lexical selection chooses between alternative translations when the source text word has alternative meanings. Apertium uses a specific XML-based technology, apertium-lex-tools, to perform lexical selection. Structural transfer (i.e., it is an XML format that allows writing complex structural transfer rules) can consist of one-step chunking transfer, three-step chunking transfer or a CFG-based transfer module. The chunking modules flag grammatical differences between the source language and target language (e.g. gender or number agreement) by creating a sequence of chunks containing markers for this. They then reorder or modify chunks in order to produce a grammatical translation in the target-language. The newer CFG-based module matches input sequences into possible parse trees, selecting the best-ranking one and applying transformation rules on the tree. The morphological generator uses the tags to deliver the correct target language surface form. The morphological generator is a morphological transducer, just like the morphological analyser. A morphological transducer both analyses and generates forms. The post-generator makes any necessary orthographic changes due to the contact of words (e.g. elisions). The reformatter replaces formatting markup (HTML, RTF, etc.) that was removed by the deformatter in the first step. Apertium delivers the target-language translation. == Supported languages == As of June 2026, the following 108 pairs and 51 languages and languages varieties are supported by Apertium.
AI Humanizers: Free vs Paid (2026)
Trying to pick the best AI humanizer? An AI humanizer is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI humanizer 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.
Uniform convergence in probability
Uniform convergence in probability is a form of convergence in probability in statistical asymptotic theory and probability theory. It means that, under certain conditions, the empirical frequencies of all events in a certain event-family uniformly converge to their theoretical probabilities. Uniform convergence in probability has applications to statistics as well as machine learning as part of statistical learning theory. Specifically, the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem and the homonymous classes of functions are fundamentally related to uniform convergence. The law of large numbers says that, for each single event A {\displaystyle A} , its empirical frequency in a sequence of independent trials converges (with high probability) to its theoretical probability. In many application however, the need arises to judge simultaneously the probabilities of events of an entire class S {\displaystyle S} from one and the same sample. Moreover, it, is required that the relative frequency of the events converge to the probability uniformly over the entire class of events S {\displaystyle S} . The Uniform Convergence Theorem gives a sufficient condition for this convergence to hold. Roughly, if the event-family is sufficiently simple (its VC dimension is sufficiently small) then uniform convergence holds. == Definitions == For a class of predicates H {\displaystyle H} defined on a set X {\displaystyle X} and a set of samples x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x m ) {\displaystyle x=(x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{m})} , where x i ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X} , the empirical frequency of h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} on x {\displaystyle x} is Q ^ x ( h ) = 1 m | { i : 1 ≤ i ≤ m , h ( x i ) = 1 } | . {\displaystyle {\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)={\frac {1}{m}}|\{i:1\leq i\leq m,h(x_{i})=1\}|.} The theoretical probability of h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} is defined as Q P ( h ) = P { y ∈ X : h ( y ) = 1 } . {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)=P\{y\in X:h(y)=1\}.} The Uniform Convergence Theorem states, roughly, that if H {\displaystyle H} is "simple" and we draw samples independently (with replacement) from X {\displaystyle X} according to any distribution P {\displaystyle P} , then with high probability, the empirical frequency will be close to its expected value, which is the theoretical probability. Here "simple" means that the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension of the class H {\displaystyle H} is small relative to the size of the sample. In other words, a sufficiently simple collection of functions behaves roughly the same on a small random sample as it does on the distribution as a whole. The Uniform Convergence Theorem was first proved by Vapnik and Chervonenkis using the concept of growth function. == Uniform Convergence Theorem == The statement of the Uniform Convergence Theorem is as follows: If H {\displaystyle H} is a set of { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued functions defined on a set X {\displaystyle X} and P {\displaystyle P} is a probability distribution on X {\displaystyle X} then for ε > 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon >0} and m {\displaystyle m} a positive integer, we have: P m { | Q P ( h ) − Q x ^ ( h ) | ≥ ε for some h ∈ H } ≤ 4 Π H ( 2 m ) e − ε 2 m / 8 . {\displaystyle P^{m}\{|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q_{x}}}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ for some }}h\in H\}\leq 4\Pi _{H}(2m)e^{-\varepsilon ^{2}m/8}.} In the above, for any x ∈ X m , {\displaystyle x\in X^{m},} Q P ( h ) = P { ( y ∈ X : h ( y ) = 1 } , {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)=P\{(y\in X:h(y)=1\},} Q ^ x ( h ) = 1 m | { i : 1 ≤ i ≤ m , h ( x i ) = 1 } | {\displaystyle {\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)={\frac {1}{m}}|\{i:1\leq i\leq m,h(x_{i})=1\}|} and | x | = m . {\displaystyle |x|=m.} P m {\displaystyle P^{m}} indicates that the probability is taken over x {\displaystyle x} consisting of m {\displaystyle m} i.i.d. draws from the distribution P . {\displaystyle P.} Finally, the growth function Π H {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}} is defined in the following way, for any { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued functions H {\displaystyle H} over X {\displaystyle X} and for any natural number m {\displaystyle m} : Π H ( m ) = max | { h ∩ D : D ⊆ X , | D | = m , h ∈ H } | . {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}(m)=\max |\{h\cap D:D\subseteq X,|D|=m,h\in H\}|.} From the point of view of Learning Theory one can consider H {\displaystyle H} to be the Concept/Hypothesis class defined over the instance set X {\displaystyle X} . Crucially, the Sauer–Shelah lemma implies that Π H ( m ) ≤ m d {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}(m)\leq m^{d}} , where d {\displaystyle d} is the VC dimension of H {\displaystyle H} . == Proof of the Uniform Convergence Theorem == and are the sources of the proof below. Before we get into the details of the proof of the Uniform Convergence Theorem we will present a high level overview of the proof. Symmetrization: We transform the problem of analyzing | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ x ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } into the problem of analyzing | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} , where r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are i.i.d samples of size m {\displaystyle m} drawn according to the distribution P {\displaystyle P} . One can view r {\displaystyle r} as the original randomly drawn sample of length m {\displaystyle m} , while s {\displaystyle s} may be thought as the testing sample which is used to estimate Q P ( h ) {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)} . Permutation: Since r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are picked identically and independently, so swapping elements between them will not change the probability distribution on r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} . So, we will try to bound the probability of | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} for some h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} by considering the effect of a specific collection of permutations of the joint sample x = r | | s {\displaystyle x=r||s} . Specifically, we consider permutations σ ( x ) {\displaystyle \sigma (x)} which swap x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x m + i {\displaystyle x_{m+i}} in some subset of 1 , 2 , . . . , m {\displaystyle {1,2,...,m}} . The symbol r | | s {\displaystyle r||s} means the concatenation of r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} . Reduction to a finite class: We can now restrict the function class H {\displaystyle H} to a fixed joint sample and hence, if H {\displaystyle H} has finite VC Dimension, it reduces to the problem to one involving a finite function class. We present the technical details of the proof. It should be stressed that this proof glosses over details like the measurability of the events V {\displaystyle V} and R {\displaystyle R} ; measurability is granted in the case of H {\displaystyle H} being finite or countable, but this is not normally the case in standard applications of the theorem (e.g. for statistical learning theory or to prove the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem). To get measurability, one needs to use a notion of separability of the underlying space, possibly related to H {\displaystyle H} . === Symmetrization === Lemma: Let V = { x ∈ X m : | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ x ( h ) | ≥ ε for some h ∈ H } {\displaystyle V=\{x\in X^{m}:|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ for some }}h\in H\}} and R = { ( r , s ) ∈ X m × X m : | Q r ^ ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 for some h ∈ H } . {\displaystyle R=\{(r,s)\in X^{m}\times X^{m}:|{\widehat {Q_{r}}}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2{\text{ for some }}h\in H\}.} Then for m ≥ 2 ε 2 {\displaystyle m\geq {\frac {2}{\varepsilon ^{2}}}} , P m ( V ) ≤ 2 P 2 m ( R ) {\displaystyle P^{m}(V)\leq 2P^{2m}(R)} . Proof: By the triangle inequality, if | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2} then | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} . Therefore, P 2 m ( R ) ≥ P 2 m { ∃ h ∈ H , | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 } = ∫ V P m { s : ∃ h ∈ H , | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 } d P m ( r ) = A {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P^{2m}(R)\\[5pt]\geq {}&P^{2m}\{\exists h\in H,|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ and }}|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2\}\\[5pt]={}&\int _{V}P^{m}\{s:\exists h\in H,|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ and }}|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2\}\,dP^{m}(r)\\[5pt]={}&A\end{aligned}}} since r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are independent. Now for r ∈ V {\displaystyle r\in V} fix an h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} such that | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } . For this h {\displaystyle h} , we shall
Dynamic topic model
Within statistics, Dynamic topic models' are generative models that can be used to analyze the evolution of (unobserved) topics of a collection of documents over time. This family of models was proposed by David Blei and John Lafferty and is an extension to Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) that can handle sequential documents. In LDA, both the order the words appear in a document and the order the documents appear in the corpus are oblivious to the model. Whereas words are still assumed to be exchangeable, in a dynamic topic model the order of the documents plays a fundamental role. More precisely, the documents are grouped by time slice (e.g.: years) and it is assumed that the documents of each group come from a set of topics that evolved from the set of the previous slice. == Topics == Similarly to LDA and pLSA, in a dynamic topic model, each document is viewed as a mixture of unobserved topics. Furthermore, each topic defines a multinomial distribution over a set of terms. Thus, for each word of each document, a topic is drawn from the mixture and a term is subsequently drawn from the multinomial distribution corresponding to that topic. The topics, however, evolve over time. For instance, the two most likely terms of a topic at time t could be "network" and "Zipf" (in descending order) while the most likely ones at time t+1 could be "Zipf" and "percolation" (in descending order). == Model == Define α t {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}} as the per-document topic distribution at time t. β t , k {\displaystyle \beta _{t,k}} as the word distribution of topic k at time t. η t , d {\displaystyle \eta _{t,d}} as the topic distribution for document d in time t, z t , d , n {\displaystyle z_{t,d,n}} as the topic for the nth word in document d in time t, and w t , d , n {\displaystyle w_{t,d,n}} as the specific word. In this model, the multinomial distributions α t + 1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{t+1}} and β t + 1 , k {\displaystyle \beta _{t+1,k}} are generated from α t {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}} and β t , k {\displaystyle \beta _{t,k}} , respectively. Even though multinomial distributions are usually written in terms of the mean parameters, representing them in terms of the natural parameters is better in the context of dynamic topic models. The former representation has some disadvantages due to the fact that the parameters are constrained to be non-negative and sum to one. When defining the evolution of these distributions, one would need to assure that such constraints were satisfied. Since both distributions are in the exponential family, one solution to this problem is to represent them in terms of the natural parameters, that can assume any real value and can be individually changed. Using the natural parameterization, the dynamics of the topic model are given by β t , k | β t − 1 , k ∼ N ( β t − 1 , k , σ 2 I ) {\displaystyle \beta _{t,k}|\beta _{t-1,k}\sim N(\beta _{t-1,k},\sigma ^{2}I)} and α t | α t − 1 ∼ N ( α t − 1 , δ 2 I ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}|\alpha _{t-1}\sim N(\alpha _{t-1},\delta ^{2}I)} . The generative process at time slice 't' is therefore: Draw topics β t , k | β t − 1 , k ∼ N ( β t − 1 , k , σ 2 I ) ∀ k {\displaystyle \beta _{t,k}|\beta _{t-1,k}\sim N(\beta _{t-1,k},\sigma ^{2}I)\forall k} Draw mixture model α t | α t − 1 ∼ N ( α t − 1 , δ 2 I ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}|\alpha _{t-1}\sim N(\alpha _{t-1},\delta ^{2}I)} For each document: Draw η t , d ∼ N ( α t , a 2 I ) {\displaystyle \eta _{t,d}\sim N(\alpha _{t},a^{2}I)} For each word: Draw topic Z t , d , n ∼ Mult ( π ( η t , d ) ) {\displaystyle Z_{t,d,n}\sim {\textrm {Mult}}(\pi (\eta _{t,d}))} Draw word W t , d , n ∼ Mult ( π ( β t , Z t , d , n ) ) {\displaystyle W_{t,d,n}\sim {\textrm {Mult}}(\pi (\beta _{t,Z_{t,d,n}}))} where π ( x ) {\displaystyle \pi (x)} is a mapping from the natural parameterization x to the mean parameterization, namely π ( x i ) = exp ( x i ) ∑ i exp ( x i ) {\displaystyle \pi (x_{i})={\frac {\exp(x_{i})}{\sum _{i}\exp(x_{i})}}} . == Inference == In the dynamic topic model, only W t , d , n {\displaystyle W_{t,d,n}} is observable. Learning the other parameters constitutes an inference problem. Blei and Lafferty argue that applying Gibbs sampling to do inference in this model is more difficult than in static models, due to the nonconjugacy of the Gaussian and multinomial distributions. They propose the use of variational methods, in particular, the Variational Kalman Filtering and the Variational Wavelet Regression. == Applications == In the original paper, a dynamic topic model is applied to the corpus of Science articles published between 1881 and 1999 aiming to show that this method can be used to analyze the trends of word usage inside topics. The authors also show that the model trained with past documents is able to fit documents of an incoming year better than LDA. A continuous dynamic topic model was developed by Wang et al. and applied to predict the timestamp of documents. Going beyond text documents, dynamic topic models were used to study musical influence, by learning musical topics and how they evolve in recent history.