Jun'ichi Tsujii (辻井 潤一, Tsujii Jun'ichi; born 7 February 1949) is a Japanese computer scientist specializing in natural language processing and text mining, particularly in the field of biology and bioinformatics. == Education == Tsujii received his Bachelor of Engineering, Master of Engineering and PhD degrees in electrical engineering from Kyoto University in 1971, 1973, and 1978 respectively. He was Assistant Professor and Associate Professor at Kyoto University, before accepting a position as Professor of Computational Linguistics at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) in 1988. He was President of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) in 2006, and has been a permanent member of the International Committee on Computational Linguistics (ICCL) since 1992, and the chair of the committee since 2014. == Research == Since May 2015, Tsujii has been the director of the Artificial Intelligence Research Center at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Japan. Tsujii was previously a Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research Asia (MSRA). Before joining MSRA, he was a professor at the University of Tokyo, where he belonged to both the School of Inter-faculty Initiative on Informatics and the Graduate School of Information Science and Technology. Tsujii is also a Visiting Professor and Scientific Advisor at the National Centre for Text Mining (NaCTeM) at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. == Awards == On 14 May 2010, Tsujii was awarded the Medals of Honor with Purple Ribbon, one of Japan's highest awards, presented to influential contributors in the fields of art, academics or sports. In September 2014, Tsujii was awarded the FUNAI Achievement Award at the Forum on Information Technology (FIT), which took place at the University of Tsukuba. The award is presented to distinguished individuals engaged in research or related business activities in the field of Information Technology who have produced excellent achievements in the field, are still active in leading positions and have strong impact on young students and researchers. In December 2014, Tsujii was named as an ACL Fellow, in recognition of his significant contributions to MT, parsing by unification-based grammar and text mining for biology. In March 2016, Tsujii was awarded Okawa Prize for his contribution to the field of Natural Language Processing, Machine Translation and Text Mining, together with Professor Jaime Carbonnel of CMU. In August 2021, Tsujii received ACL Lifetime Achievement Award, which is considered the most prestigious award in the field of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing. In May 2022, Tsujii received the Order of the Sacred Treasure, Gold Rays and Neck Ribbon, from the Japanese government. In October 2024, Tsujii was designated a Person of Cultural Merit. == Selected publications == Oiwa, Hidekazu; Tsujii, Jun'ichi (2014). Common Space Embedding of Primal-Dual Relation Semantic Spaces. COLING 2014. Dublin. pp. 1579–1590. Taura, K.; Matsuzaki, T.; Miwa, M.; Kamoshida, Y.; Yokoyama, D.; Dun, N.; Shibata, T.; Jun, C. S.; Tsujii, J. (2013). "Design and implementation of GXP make – A workflow system based on make". Future Generation Computer Systems. 29 (2): 662–672. doi:10.1016/j.future.2011.05.026. S2CID 31627886. Sun, X.; Zhang, Y.; Matsuzaki, T.; Tsuruoka, Y.; Tsujii, J. (2013). "Probabilistic Chinese word segmentation with non-local information and stochastic training". Information Processing & Management. 49 (3): 626–636. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2012.12.003. Mu, T.; Goulermas, J. Y.; Tsujii, J.; Ananiadou, S. (2012). "Proximity-Based Frameworks for Generating Embeddings from Multi-Output Data". IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 34 (11): 2216–2232. Bibcode:2012ITPAM..34.2216M. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2012.20. PMID 23289130. S2CID 711467. Miwa, M.; Sætre, R.; Kim, J. D.; Tsujii, J. (2010). "Event Extraction with Complex Event Classification Using Rich Features". Journal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. 08 (1): 131–146. doi:10.1142/S0219720010004586. PMID 20183879. Kim, J. D.; Ohta, T.; Tsujii, J. (2008). "Corpus annotation for mining biomedical events from literature". BMC Bioinformatics. 9 10. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-10. PMC 2267702. PMID 18182099. Miyao, Y.; Tsujii, J. (2008). "Feature Forest Models for Probabilistic HPSG Parsing". Computational Linguistics. 34: 35–80. doi:10.1162/coli.2008.34.1.35. S2CID 885002. Sagae, Kenji; Tsujii, Jun'ichi (2007). Dependency Parsing and Domain Adaptation with LR Models and Parser Ensembles. EMNLP-CoNLL. pp. 1044–1050. Ananiadou, S; Pyysalo, S; Tsujii, J; Kell, D. B. (2010). "Event extraction for systems biology by text mining the literature". Trends in Biotechnology. 28 (7): 381–90. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2010.04.005. PMID 20570001. Tsuruoka, Y.; Tateishi, Y.; Kim, J. D.; Ohta, T.; McNaught, J.; Ananiadou, S.; Tsujii, J. (2005). "Developing a Robust Part-of-Speech Tagger for Biomedical Text". Advances in Informatics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 3746. p. 382. doi:10.1007/11573036_36. ISBN 978-3-540-29673-7. S2CID 206592413. Tsuruoka, Y.; Tsujii, J. (2005). Bidirectional inference with the easiest-first strategy for tagging sequence data. Proceedings of the conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing - HLT '05. pp. 467–474. doi:10.3115/1220575.1220634. Tsujii, J.; Ananiadou, S. (2005). "Thesaurus or Logical Ontology, Which One Do We Need for Text Mining?". Language Resources and Evaluation. 39: 77–90. doi:10.1007/s10579-005-2697-0. S2CID 3204827. Kazama, J. I.; Tsujii, J. I. (2005). "Maximum Entropy Models with Inequality Constraints: A Case Study on Text Categorization". Machine Learning. 60 (1–3): 159–194. doi:10.1007/s10994-005-0911-3. hdl:10119/3305. Matsuzaki, T.; Miyao, Y.; Tsujii, J. I. (2005). Probabilistic CFG with latent annotations. 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - ACL '05. p. 75. doi:10.3115/1219840.1219850. Kim, J. -D.; Ohta, T.; Tateisi, Y.; Tsujii, J. (2003). "GENIA corpus--a semantically annotated corpus for bio-textmining". Bioinformatics. 19: i180–i182. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg1023. PMID 12855455. Hirschman, L.; Park, J. C.; Tsujii, J.; Wong, L.; Wu, C. H. (2002). "Accomplishments and challenges in literature data mining for biology". Bioinformatics. 18 (12): 1553–1561. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/18.12.1553. PMID 12490438. Torisawa, K.; Tsujii, J. I. (1996). Computing phrasal-signs in HPSG prior to parsing. 16th conference on Computational linguistics -. Vol. 2. p. 949. doi:10.3115/993268.993332.
Find It, Fix It
Find It, Fix It is a mobile app developed by the city of Seattle to report non-emergency issues. == History == The City of Seattle launched Find It, Fix It in 2013 for Android and iOS phones to let citizens report potholes, graffiti, and other problems they observe to the city. The app did not support Windows Phone, making it inaccessible to Microsoft employees in the city who used the company's then-supported mobile operating system. In 2015, Mayor Ed Murray led a Find It, Fix It walk with about 100 other people, including police officers, in the University District. Participants were encouraged to use the app to report problems they observed in the neighborhood. Later Find It, Fix It walks have taken place in neighborhoods including Crown Hill, First Hill, Belltown, Wallingford, and Highland Park. In 2020, Find It, Fix It added support for reporting issues with the dockless bicycle sharing systems in the city. Citing the success of Seattle’s app, the nearby city of Kent, Washington, announced that it would create a similar customer service app. == Usage == Users of Find It, Fix It can submit reports about graffiti, potholes, parking violations, broken street signs, and other issues. The app is designed to use a smartphone’s camera and GPS features to make it easier for users to file reports. The Atlantic reported in 2018 that Find It, Fix It was being used by neighborhood groups to report homeless encampments with the intention of having authorities remove them, citing examples of campaigns in Ravenna and Ballard. The executive director of Ballard Alliance, a local chamber of commerce for businesses in the neighborhood, used a private Facebook group to encourage business owners to use the app to report homeless encampments. In response to a poster campaign in the summer of 2019 with the slogan “See a tent? Report a tent”, a representative for the mayor’s office and two Seattle City Council members said that it was inappropriate to encourage use of Find It, Fix It to displace homeless people. As a backlash to these campaigns, people living far from Seattle filed hoax complaints using the app, such as by using photos of tents on display at REI stores. According to the Seattle Times, between January 1, 2020, and November 15, 2021, the city had received over 230,000 service requests, of which 77% were submitted via Find It, Fix It. The largest category of these, numbering over 55,000, concerned illegal dumping. Of complaints categorized as "parking", 3,000 had comments explicitly mentioning issues around homelessness. The ZIP code 98134, covering an industrial area south of Pioneer Square and north of Georgetown, had 5,559 service requests per 1,000 residents, by far the highest in the city.
Automated essay scoring
Automated essay scoring (AES) is the use of specialized computer programs to assign grades to essays written in an educational setting. It is a form of educational assessment and an application of natural language processing. Its objective is to classify a large set of textual entities into a small number of discrete categories, corresponding to the possible grades, for example, the numbers 1 to 6. Therefore, it can be considered a problem of statistical classification. Several factors have contributed to a growing interest in AES. Among them are cost, accountability, standards, and technology. Rising education costs have led to pressure to hold the educational system accountable for results by imposing standards. The advance of information technology promises to measure educational achievement at reduced cost. The use of AES for high-stakes testing in education has generated significant backlash, with opponents pointing to research that computers cannot yet grade writing accurately and arguing that their use for such purposes promotes teaching writing in reductive ways (i.e. teaching to the test). == History == Most historical summaries of AES trace the origins of the field to the work of Ellis Batten Page. In 1966, he argued for the possibility of scoring essays by computer, and in 1968 he published his successful work with a program called Project Essay Grade (PEG). Using the technology of that time, computerized essay scoring would not have been cost-effective, so Page abated his efforts for about two decades. Eventually, Page sold PEG to Measurement Incorporated. By 1990, desktop computers had become so powerful and so widespread that AES was a practical possibility. As early as 1982, a UNIX program called Writer's Workbench was able to offer punctuation, spelling and grammar advice. In collaboration with several companies (notably Educational Testing Service), Page updated PEG and ran some successful trials in the early 1990s. Peter Foltz and Thomas Landauer developed a system using a scoring engine called the Intelligent Essay Assessor (IEA). IEA was first used to score essays in 1997 for their undergraduate courses. It is now a product from Pearson Educational Technologies and used for scoring within a number of commercial products and state and national exams. IntelliMetric is Vantage Learning's AES engine. Its development began in 1996. It was first used commercially to score essays in 1998. Educational Testing Service offers "e-rater", an automated essay scoring program. It was first used commercially in February 1999. Jill Burstein was the team leader in its development. ETS's Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service uses the e-rater engine to provide both scores and targeted feedback. Lawrence Rudner has done some work with Bayesian scoring, and developed a system called BETSY (Bayesian Essay Test Scoring sYstem). Some of his results have been published in print or online, but no commercial system incorporates BETSY as yet. Under the leadership of Howard Mitzel and Sue Lottridge, Pacific Metrics developed a constructed response automated scoring engine, CRASE. Currently utilized by several state departments of education and in a U.S. Department of Education-funded Enhanced Assessment Grant, Pacific Metrics’ technology has been used in large-scale formative and summative assessment environments since 2007. Measurement Inc. acquired the rights to PEG in 2002 and has continued to develop it. In 2012, the Hewlett Foundation sponsored a competition on Kaggle called the Automated Student Assessment Prize (ASAP). 201 challenge participants attempted to predict, using AES, the scores that human raters would give to thousands of essays written to eight different prompts. The intent was to demonstrate that AES can be as reliable as human raters, or more so. The competition also hosted a separate demonstration among nine AES vendors on a subset of the ASAP data. Although the investigators reported that the automated essay scoring was as reliable as human scoring, this claim was not substantiated by any statistical tests because some of the vendors required that no such tests be performed as a precondition for their participation. Moreover, the claim that the Hewlett Study demonstrated that AES can be as reliable as human raters has since been strongly contested, including by Randy E. Bennett, the Norman O. Frederiksen Chair in Assessment Innovation at the Educational Testing Service. Some of the major criticisms of the study have been that five of the eight datasets consisted of paragraphs rather than essays, four of the eight data sets were graded by human readers for content only rather than for writing ability, and that rather than measuring human readers and the AES machines against the "true score", the average of the two readers' scores, the study employed an artificial construct, the "resolved score", which in four datasets consisted of the higher of the two human scores if there was a disagreement. This last practice, in particular, gave the machines an unfair advantage by allowing them to round up for these datasets. In 1966, Page hypothesized that, in the future, the computer-based judge will be better correlated with each human judge than the other human judges are. Despite criticizing the applicability of this approach to essay marking in general, this hypothesis was supported for marking free text answers to short questions, such as those typical of the British GCSE system. Results of supervised learning demonstrate that the automatic systems perform well when marking by different human teachers is in good agreement. Unsupervised clustering of answers showed that excellent papers and weak papers formed well-defined clusters, and the automated marking rule for these clusters worked well, whereas marks given by human teachers for the third cluster ('mixed') can be controversial, and the reliability of any assessment of works from the 'mixed' cluster can often be questioned (both human and computer-based). == Different dimensions of essay quality == According to a recent survey, modern AES systems try to score different dimensions of an essay's quality in order to provide feedback to users. These dimensions include the following items: Grammaticality: following grammar rules Usage: using of prepositions, word usage Mechanics: following rules for spelling, punctuation, capitalization Style: word choice, sentence structure variety Relevance: how relevant of the content to the prompt Organization: how well the essay is structured Development: development of ideas with examples Cohesion: appropriate use of transition phrases Coherence: appropriate transitions between ideas Thesis Clarity: clarity of the thesis Persuasiveness: convincingness of the major argument == Procedure == From the beginning, the basic procedure for AES has been to start with a training set of essays that have been carefully hand-scored. The program evaluates surface features of the text of each essay, such as the total number of words, the number of subordinate clauses, or the ratio of uppercase to lowercase letters—quantities that can be measured without any human insight. It then constructs a mathematical model that relates these quantities to the scores that the essays received. The same model is then applied to calculate scores of new essays. Recently, one such mathematical model was created by Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. which not only evaluates essays on the above features, but also on their argument strength. It evaluates various features of the essay, such as the agreement level of the author and reasons for the same, adherence to the prompt's topic, locations of argument components (major claim, claim, premise), errors in the arguments, cohesion in the arguments among various other features. In contrast to the other models mentioned above, this model is closer in duplicating human insight while grading essays. Due to the growing popularity of deep neural networks, deep learning approaches have been adopted for automated essay scoring, generally obtaining superior results, often surpassing inter-human agreement levels. The various AES programs differ in what specific surface features they measure, how many essays are required in the training set, and most significantly in the mathematical modeling technique. Early attempts used linear regression. Modern systems may use linear regression or other machine learning techniques often in combination with other statistical techniques such as latent semantic analysis and Bayesian inference. The automated essay scoring task has also been studied in the cross-domain setting using machine learning models, where the models are trained on essays written for one prompt (topic) and tested on essays written for another prompt. Successful approaches in the cross-domain scenario are based on deep neural networks or models that combine deep and shallow features. == Criteria for success == Any method of a
Image destriping
Image destriping is the process of removing stripes or streaks from images and videos without disrupting the original image/video. These artifacts plague a range of fields in scientific imaging including atomic force microscopy, light sheet fluorescence microscopy, and planetary satellite imaging. The most common image processing techniques to reduce stripe artifacts is with Fourier filtering. Unfortunately, filtering methods risk altering or suppressing useful image data. Methods developed for multiple-sensor imaging systems in planetary satellites use statistical-based methods to match signal distribution across multiple sensors. More recently, a new class of approaches leverage compressed sensing, to regularize an optimization problem, and recover stripe free images. In many cases, these destriped images have little to no artifacts, even at low signal to noise ratios.
Automated essay scoring
Automated essay scoring (AES) is the use of specialized computer programs to assign grades to essays written in an educational setting. It is a form of educational assessment and an application of natural language processing. Its objective is to classify a large set of textual entities into a small number of discrete categories, corresponding to the possible grades, for example, the numbers 1 to 6. Therefore, it can be considered a problem of statistical classification. Several factors have contributed to a growing interest in AES. Among them are cost, accountability, standards, and technology. Rising education costs have led to pressure to hold the educational system accountable for results by imposing standards. The advance of information technology promises to measure educational achievement at reduced cost. The use of AES for high-stakes testing in education has generated significant backlash, with opponents pointing to research that computers cannot yet grade writing accurately and arguing that their use for such purposes promotes teaching writing in reductive ways (i.e. teaching to the test). == History == Most historical summaries of AES trace the origins of the field to the work of Ellis Batten Page. In 1966, he argued for the possibility of scoring essays by computer, and in 1968 he published his successful work with a program called Project Essay Grade (PEG). Using the technology of that time, computerized essay scoring would not have been cost-effective, so Page abated his efforts for about two decades. Eventually, Page sold PEG to Measurement Incorporated. By 1990, desktop computers had become so powerful and so widespread that AES was a practical possibility. As early as 1982, a UNIX program called Writer's Workbench was able to offer punctuation, spelling and grammar advice. In collaboration with several companies (notably Educational Testing Service), Page updated PEG and ran some successful trials in the early 1990s. Peter Foltz and Thomas Landauer developed a system using a scoring engine called the Intelligent Essay Assessor (IEA). IEA was first used to score essays in 1997 for their undergraduate courses. It is now a product from Pearson Educational Technologies and used for scoring within a number of commercial products and state and national exams. IntelliMetric is Vantage Learning's AES engine. Its development began in 1996. It was first used commercially to score essays in 1998. Educational Testing Service offers "e-rater", an automated essay scoring program. It was first used commercially in February 1999. Jill Burstein was the team leader in its development. ETS's Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service uses the e-rater engine to provide both scores and targeted feedback. Lawrence Rudner has done some work with Bayesian scoring, and developed a system called BETSY (Bayesian Essay Test Scoring sYstem). Some of his results have been published in print or online, but no commercial system incorporates BETSY as yet. Under the leadership of Howard Mitzel and Sue Lottridge, Pacific Metrics developed a constructed response automated scoring engine, CRASE. Currently utilized by several state departments of education and in a U.S. Department of Education-funded Enhanced Assessment Grant, Pacific Metrics’ technology has been used in large-scale formative and summative assessment environments since 2007. Measurement Inc. acquired the rights to PEG in 2002 and has continued to develop it. In 2012, the Hewlett Foundation sponsored a competition on Kaggle called the Automated Student Assessment Prize (ASAP). 201 challenge participants attempted to predict, using AES, the scores that human raters would give to thousands of essays written to eight different prompts. The intent was to demonstrate that AES can be as reliable as human raters, or more so. The competition also hosted a separate demonstration among nine AES vendors on a subset of the ASAP data. Although the investigators reported that the automated essay scoring was as reliable as human scoring, this claim was not substantiated by any statistical tests because some of the vendors required that no such tests be performed as a precondition for their participation. Moreover, the claim that the Hewlett Study demonstrated that AES can be as reliable as human raters has since been strongly contested, including by Randy E. Bennett, the Norman O. Frederiksen Chair in Assessment Innovation at the Educational Testing Service. Some of the major criticisms of the study have been that five of the eight datasets consisted of paragraphs rather than essays, four of the eight data sets were graded by human readers for content only rather than for writing ability, and that rather than measuring human readers and the AES machines against the "true score", the average of the two readers' scores, the study employed an artificial construct, the "resolved score", which in four datasets consisted of the higher of the two human scores if there was a disagreement. This last practice, in particular, gave the machines an unfair advantage by allowing them to round up for these datasets. In 1966, Page hypothesized that, in the future, the computer-based judge will be better correlated with each human judge than the other human judges are. Despite criticizing the applicability of this approach to essay marking in general, this hypothesis was supported for marking free text answers to short questions, such as those typical of the British GCSE system. Results of supervised learning demonstrate that the automatic systems perform well when marking by different human teachers is in good agreement. Unsupervised clustering of answers showed that excellent papers and weak papers formed well-defined clusters, and the automated marking rule for these clusters worked well, whereas marks given by human teachers for the third cluster ('mixed') can be controversial, and the reliability of any assessment of works from the 'mixed' cluster can often be questioned (both human and computer-based). == Different dimensions of essay quality == According to a recent survey, modern AES systems try to score different dimensions of an essay's quality in order to provide feedback to users. These dimensions include the following items: Grammaticality: following grammar rules Usage: using of prepositions, word usage Mechanics: following rules for spelling, punctuation, capitalization Style: word choice, sentence structure variety Relevance: how relevant of the content to the prompt Organization: how well the essay is structured Development: development of ideas with examples Cohesion: appropriate use of transition phrases Coherence: appropriate transitions between ideas Thesis Clarity: clarity of the thesis Persuasiveness: convincingness of the major argument == Procedure == From the beginning, the basic procedure for AES has been to start with a training set of essays that have been carefully hand-scored. The program evaluates surface features of the text of each essay, such as the total number of words, the number of subordinate clauses, or the ratio of uppercase to lowercase letters—quantities that can be measured without any human insight. It then constructs a mathematical model that relates these quantities to the scores that the essays received. The same model is then applied to calculate scores of new essays. Recently, one such mathematical model was created by Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. which not only evaluates essays on the above features, but also on their argument strength. It evaluates various features of the essay, such as the agreement level of the author and reasons for the same, adherence to the prompt's topic, locations of argument components (major claim, claim, premise), errors in the arguments, cohesion in the arguments among various other features. In contrast to the other models mentioned above, this model is closer in duplicating human insight while grading essays. Due to the growing popularity of deep neural networks, deep learning approaches have been adopted for automated essay scoring, generally obtaining superior results, often surpassing inter-human agreement levels. The various AES programs differ in what specific surface features they measure, how many essays are required in the training set, and most significantly in the mathematical modeling technique. Early attempts used linear regression. Modern systems may use linear regression or other machine learning techniques often in combination with other statistical techniques such as latent semantic analysis and Bayesian inference. The automated essay scoring task has also been studied in the cross-domain setting using machine learning models, where the models are trained on essays written for one prompt (topic) and tested on essays written for another prompt. Successful approaches in the cross-domain scenario are based on deep neural networks or models that combine deep and shallow features. == Criteria for success == Any method of a
Zynn
Zynn was a Chinese video-sharing social networking service owned by Kuaishou, a Beijing-based internet technology company established in 2011 by Su Hua and Cheng Yixiao. It was used to create and share short videos, and it pays its users for using the app and referring others. Zynn was launched on May 7, 2020. It became the most-downloaded app in the App Store in the same month. It has also been criticized for being a "pyramid scheme", and it has faced accusations of plagiarism and stealing content. Aside from Zynn in North America, Kuaishou is available under the name Kwai in Russia, South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil, America, India, and the Middle East. Kwai used to be available in Australia and the United States on the App Store, but was removed at an unknown date. Zynn was permanently shut down on the 20th of August, 2021. == History == In 2011, entrepreneur Su Hua co-founded Kuaishou with business partner Cheng Yixiao. Originally a GIF-making app, Kuaishou soon moved to short video content. Su Hua also serves as the current Kuaishou CEO. In December 2019, Chinese internet conglomerate Tencent invested $2 billion in Kuaishou, reportedly to compete with rival ByteDance. In December 2019, Kuaishou acquired an app developer called Owlii, which is the developer of Zynn. Zynn was developed to be a North American Market edition of Kuaishou. On May 7, 2020, the app was launched and it was downloaded over 2 million times in that month. On May 12, 2020, Kuaishou filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for "unfair competition", and accused Douyin, the sister app of TikTok, of "interfering" with search results on app stores. Zynn shut down on the 20th of August, 2021. == Features == Zynn allows its users to create, edit and share short videos of themselves. Its interface has been described as a "complete clone" of TikTok, its main competitor. The Zynn app was unique in the way that they paid users for using the platform. Each user earned $1 for signing up, and they could earn money for referring users to the platform. Watching videos resulted in earning "points", which could be redeemed for gift cards or be cashed out via PayPal.[1] == Criticisms and controversies == Multiple TikTok users had reported seeing their entire accounts plagiarized, with one account pretending to be Addison Rae. Despite being launched in May, many videos were posted in February. Zynn has employed "intermittent variable rewards" in its point system, which has been criticized as being the "same reinforcement strategy used to addict people to slot machines". Cash payouts for using the app have resulted in criticism and accusations of anti-competitive behavior. The app was taken down from the Google Play store on June 10. Zynn blamed it on an "isolated incident". Six days later, it was taken down from the App Store as well. US Senator Josh Hawley has criticized the platform, calling it "predatory" and "anti-competitive" in a letter to the Federal Trade Commission asking for an investigation into Zynn. He said "[Zynn] smacks of a textbook predatory-pricing scheme, one calculated to attain immediate market dominance for Zynn by driving competitors out of the market."
Trigram
Trigrams are a special case of the n-gram, where n is 3. They are often used in natural language processing for performing statistical analysis of texts and in cryptography for control and use of ciphers and codes. See results of analysis of "Letter Frequencies in the English Language". == Frequency == Context is very important, varying analysis rankings and percentages are easily derived by drawing from different sample sizes, different authors; or different document types: poetry, science-fiction, technology documentation; and writing levels: stories for children versus adults, military orders, and recipes. Typical cryptanalytic frequency analysis finds that the 16 most common character-level trigrams in English are: Because encrypted messages sent by telegraph often omit punctuation and spaces, cryptographic frequency analysis of such messages includes trigrams that straddle word boundaries. This causes trigrams such as "edt" to occur frequently, even though it may never occur in any one word of those messages. == Examples == The sentence "the quick red fox jumps over the lazy brown dog" has the following word-level trigrams: the quick red quick red fox red fox jumps fox jumps over jumps over the over the lazy the lazy brown lazy brown dog And the word-level trigram "the quick red" has the following character-level trigrams (where an underscore "_" marks a space): the he_ e_q _qu qui uic ick ck_ k_r _re red