A device-independent pixel (also: density-independent pixel, dip, dp) is a unit of length. A typical use is to allow mobile device software to scale the display of information and user interaction to different screen sizes. The abstraction allows an application to work in pixels as a measurement, while the underlying graphics system converts the abstract pixel measurements of the application into real pixel measurements appropriate to the particular device. For example, on the Android operating system a device-independent pixel is equivalent to one physical pixel on a 160 dpi screen, while the Windows Presentation Foundation specifies one device-independent pixel as equivalent to 1/96th of an inch. As dp is a physical unit it has an absolute value which can be measured in traditional units, e.g. for Android devices 1 dp equals 1/160 of inch or 0.15875 mm. While traditional pixels only refer to the display of information, device-independent pixels may also be used to measure user input such as input on a touch screen device.
Negobot
Negobot also referred to as Lolita or Lolita chatbot is a chatterbot that was introduced to the public in 2013, designed by researchers from the University of Deusto and Optenet to catch online pedophiles. It is a conversational agent that utilizes natural language processing (NLP), information retrieval (IR) and Automatic Learning. Because the bot poses as a young female in order to entice and track potential predators, it became known in media as the "virtual Lolita", in reference to Vladimir Nabokov's novel. == Background == In 2013, the University of Deusto researchers published a paper on their work with Negobot and disclosed the text online. In their abstract, the researchers addressed the issue that an increasing number of children are using the internet and that these young users are more susceptible to existing internet risks. Their main objective was to create a chatterbot with the ability to trap online predators that posed a threat to children. They intended to deploy the bot into sites frequented by predators such as social networks and chatrooms. The university researchers used information provided by anti-pedophilia activist organization Perverted-Justice, including examples of online encounters and conversations with sexual predators, to supplement the program's artificial intelligence system. == Features == === Programmed persona === The chatterbot takes the guise of a naive and vulnerable 14-year-old girl. The bot's programmers used methods of artificial intelligence and natural language processing to create a conversational agent fluent in typical teenage slang, misspellings, and knowledge of pop culture. Through these linguistic features, the bot is able to mimic the conversational style of young teenagers. It also features split personalities and seven different patterns of conversation. Negobot's primary creator, Dr. Carlos Laorden, expressed the significance of the bot's distinguishable style of communication, stating that normally, "chatbots tend to be very predictable. Their behavior and interest in a conversation are flat, which is a problem when attempting to detect untrustworthy targets like paedophiles." What makes Negobot different is its game theory feature, which makes it able to "maintain a much more realistic conversation." Apart from being able to imitate a stereotypical teenager, the program is also able to translate messages into different languages. === Game theory === Negobot's designers programmed it with the ability to treat conversations with potential predators as if it were a game, the objective being to collect as much information on the suspect as possible that could provide evidence of pedophilic characteristics and motives. The use of game theory shapes the decisions the bot makes and the overall direction of the conversation. The bot initiates its undercover operations by entering a chat as a passive participant, waiting to be chatted by a user. Once a user elicits conversation, the bot will frame the conversation in such a way that keeps the target engaged, extracting personal information and discouraging it from leaving the chat. The information is then recorded to be potentially sent to the police. If the target seems to lose interest, the bot attempts to make it feel guilty by expressing sentiments of loneliness and emotional need through strategic, formulated responses, ultimately prolonging interaction. In addition, the bot may provide fake information about itself in attempt to lure the target into physical meetings. === Limitations === Despite being able to carry out a realistic conversation, Negobot is still unable to detect linguistic subtleties in the messages of others, including sarcasm. == Controversy == John Carr, a specialist in online child safety, expressed his concern to BBC over the legality of this undercover investigation. He claimed that using the bot on unsuspecting internet users could be considered a form of entrapment or harassment. The type of information that Negobot collects from potential online predators, he said, is unlikely to be upheld in court. Furthermore, he warned that relying on only software without any real-world policing risks enticing individuals to do or say things that they would not have if real-world policing were a factor.
Pandorabots
Pandorabots, Inc. is an artificial intelligence company that runs a web service for building and deploying chatbots. Pandorabots implements and supports development of the Artificial Intelligence Markup Language and makes portions of its code accessible for free. The Pandorabots Platform is "one of the oldest and largest chatbot hosting services in the world", allowing creation of virtual agents to hold human-like text or voice chats with consumers. The platform is written in Allegro Common LISP. == Use Cases == Common use cases include advertising, virtual assistance, e-learning, entertainment and education. The platform has also been used by academics and universities use the platform for teaching and research.
Scale space implementation
In the areas of computer vision, image analysis and signal processing, the notion of scale-space representation is used for processing measurement data at multiple scales, and specifically enhance or suppress image features over different ranges of scale (see the article on scale space). A special type of scale-space representation is provided by the Gaussian scale space, where the image data in N dimensions is subjected to smoothing by Gaussian convolution. Most of the theory for Gaussian scale space deals with continuous images, whereas one when implementing this theory will have to face the fact that most measurement data are discrete. Hence, the theoretical problem arises concerning how to discretize the continuous theory while either preserving or well approximating the desirable theoretical properties that lead to the choice of the Gaussian kernel (see the article on scale-space axioms). This article describes basic approaches for this that have been developed in the literature, see also for an in-depth treatment regarding the topic of approximating the Gaussian smoothing operation and the Gaussian derivative computations in scale-space theory, and for a complementary treatment regarding hybrid discretization methods. == Statement of the problem == The Gaussian scale-space representation of an N-dimensional continuous signal, f C ( x 1 , ⋯ , x N , t ) , {\displaystyle f_{C}\left(x_{1},\cdots ,x_{N},t\right),} is obtained by convolving fC with an N-dimensional Gaussian kernel: g N ( x 1 , ⋯ , x N , t ) . {\displaystyle g_{N}\left(x_{1},\cdots ,x_{N},t\right).} In other words: L ( x 1 , ⋯ , x N , t ) = ∫ u 1 = − ∞ ∞ ⋯ ∫ u N = − ∞ ∞ f C ( x 1 − u 1 , ⋯ , x N − u N , t ) ⋅ g N ( u 1 , ⋯ , u N , t ) d u 1 ⋯ d u N . {\displaystyle L\left(x_{1},\cdots ,x_{N},t\right)=\int _{u_{1}=-\infty }^{\infty }\cdots \int _{u_{N}=-\infty }^{\infty }f_{C}\left(x_{1}-u_{1},\cdots ,x_{N}-u_{N},t\right)\cdot g_{N}\left(u_{1},\cdots ,u_{N},t\right)\,du_{1}\cdots du_{N}.} However, for implementation, this definition is impractical, since it is continuous. When applying the scale space concept to a discrete signal fD, different approaches can be taken. This article is a brief summary of some of the most frequently used methods. == Separability == Using the separability property of the Gaussian kernel g N ( x 1 , … , x N , t ) = G ( x 1 , t ) ⋯ G ( x N , t ) {\displaystyle g_{N}\left(x_{1},\dots ,x_{N},t\right)=G\left(x_{1},t\right)\cdots G\left(x_{N},t\right)} the N-dimensional convolution operation can be decomposed into a set of separable smoothing steps with a one-dimensional Gaussian kernel G along each dimension L ( x 1 , ⋯ , x N , t ) = ∫ u 1 = − ∞ ∞ ⋯ ∫ u N = − ∞ ∞ f C ( x 1 − u 1 , ⋯ , x N − u N , t ) G ( u 1 , t ) d u 1 ⋯ G ( u N , t ) d u N , {\displaystyle L(x_{1},\cdots ,x_{N},t)=\int _{u_{1}=-\infty }^{\infty }\cdots \int _{u_{N}=-\infty }^{\infty }f_{C}(x_{1}-u_{1},\cdots ,x_{N}-u_{N},t)G(u_{1},t)\,du_{1}\cdots G(u_{N},t)\,du_{N},} where G ( x , t ) = 1 2 π t e − x 2 2 t {\displaystyle G(x,t)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi t}}}e^{-{\frac {x^{2}}{2t}}}} and the standard deviation of the Gaussian σ is related to the scale parameter t according to t = σ2. Separability will be assumed in all that follows, even when the kernel is not exactly Gaussian, since separation of the dimensions is the most practical way to implement multidimensional smoothing, especially at larger scales. Therefore, the rest of the article focuses on the one-dimensional case. == The sampled Gaussian kernel == When implementing the one-dimensional smoothing step in practice, the presumably simplest approach is to convolve the discrete signal fD with a sampled Gaussian kernel: L ( x , t ) = ∑ n = − ∞ ∞ f ( x − n ) G ( n , t ) {\displaystyle L(x,t)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }f(x-n)\,G(n,t)} where G ( n , t ) = 1 2 π t e − n 2 2 t {\displaystyle G(n,t)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi t}}}e^{-{\frac {n^{2}}{2t}}}} (with t = σ2) which in turn is truncated at the ends to give a filter with finite impulse response L ( x , t ) = ∑ n = − M M f ( x − n ) G ( n , t ) {\displaystyle L(x,t)=\sum _{n=-M}^{M}f(x-n)\,G(n,t)} for M chosen sufficiently large (see error function) such that 2 ∫ M ∞ G ( u , t ) d u = 2 ∫ M t ∞ G ( v , 1 ) d v < ε . {\displaystyle 2\int _{M}^{\infty }G(u,t)\,du=2\int _{\frac {M}{\sqrt {t}}}^{\infty }G(v,1)\,dv<\varepsilon .} A common choice is to set M to a constant C times the standard deviation of the Gaussian kernel M = C σ + 1 = C t + 1 {\displaystyle M=C\sigma +1=C{\sqrt {t}}+1} where C is often chosen somewhere between 3 and 6. Using the sampled Gaussian kernel can, however, lead to implementation problems, in particular when computing higher-order derivatives at finer scales by applying sampled derivatives of Gaussian kernels. When accuracy and robustness are primary design criteria, alternative implementation approaches should therefore be considered. For small values of ε (10−6 to 10−8) the errors introduced by truncating the Gaussian are usually negligible. For larger values of ε, however, there are many better alternatives to a rectangular window function. For example, for a given number of points, a Hamming window, Blackman window, or Kaiser window will do less damage to the spectral and other properties of the Gaussian than a simple truncation will. Notwithstanding this, since the Gaussian kernel decreases rapidly at the tails, the main recommendation is still to use a sufficiently small value of ε such that the truncation effects are no longer important. == The discrete Gaussian kernel == A more refined approach is to convolve the original signal with the discrete Gaussian kernel T(n, t) L ( x , t ) = ∑ n = − ∞ ∞ f ( x − n ) T ( n , t ) {\displaystyle L(x,t)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }f(x-n)\,T(n,t)} where T ( n , t ) = e − t I n ( t ) {\displaystyle T(n,t)=e^{-t}I_{n}(t)} and I n ( t ) {\displaystyle I_{n}(t)} denotes the modified Bessel functions of integer order, n. This is the discrete counterpart of the continuous Gaussian in that it is the solution to the discrete diffusion equation (discrete space, continuous time), just as the continuous Gaussian is the solution to the continuous diffusion equation. This filter can be truncated in the spatial domain as for the sampled Gaussian L ( x , t ) = ∑ n = − M M f ( x − n ) T ( n , t ) {\displaystyle L(x,t)=\sum _{n=-M}^{M}f(x-n)\,T(n,t)} or can be implemented in the Fourier domain using a closed-form expression for its discrete-time Fourier transform: T ^ ( θ , t ) = ∑ n = − ∞ ∞ T ( n , t ) e − i θ n = e t ( cos θ − 1 ) . {\displaystyle {\widehat {T}}(\theta ,t)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }T(n,t)\,e^{-i\theta n}=e^{t(\cos \theta -1)}.} With this frequency-domain approach, the scale-space properties transfer exactly to the discrete domain, or with excellent approximation using periodic extension and a suitably long discrete Fourier transform to approximate the discrete-time Fourier transform of the signal being smoothed. Moreover, higher-order derivative approximations can be computed in a straightforward manner (and preserving scale-space properties) by applying small support central difference operators to the discrete scale space representation. As with the sampled Gaussian, a plain truncation of the infinite impulse response will in most cases be a sufficient approximation for small values of ε, while for larger values of ε it is better to use either a decomposition of the discrete Gaussian into a cascade of generalized binomial filters or alternatively to construct a finite approximate kernel by multiplying by a window function. If ε has been chosen too large such that effects of the truncation error begin to appear (for example as spurious extrema or spurious responses to higher-order derivative operators), then the options are to decrease the value of ε such that a larger finite kernel is used, with cutoff where the support is very small, or to use a tapered window. == Recursive filters == Since computational efficiency is often important, low-order recursive filters are often used for scale-space smoothing. For example, Young and van Vliet use a third-order recursive filter with one real pole and a pair of complex poles, applied forward and backward to make a sixth-order symmetric approximation to the Gaussian with low computational complexity for any smoothing scale. By relaxing a few of the axioms, Lindeberg concluded that good smoothing filters would be "normalized Pólya frequency sequences", a family of discrete kernels that includes all filters with real poles at 0 < Z < 1 and/or Z > 1, as well as with real zeros at Z < 0. For symmetry, which leads to approximate directional homogeneity, these filters must be further restricted to pairs of poles and zeros that lead to zero-phase filters. To match the transfer function curvature at zero frequency of the discrete Gaussian, which ensures an approximate semi-group property of additive t, two poles at Z = 1 + 2 t − ( 1 + 2 t ) 2 − 1 {\displaystyle
Machine translation software usability
The sections below give objective criteria for evaluating the usability of machine translation software output. == Stationarity or canonical form == Do repeated translations converge on a single expression in both languages? I.e. does the translation method show stationarity or produce a canonical form? Does the translation become stationary without losing the original meaning? This metric has been criticized as not being well correlated with BLEU (BiLingual Evaluation Understudy) scores. == Adaptive to colloquialism, argot or slang == Is the system adaptive to colloquialism, argot or slang? The French language has many rules for creating words in the speech and writing of popular culture. Two such rules are: (a) The reverse spelling of words such as femme to meuf. (This is called verlan.) (b) The attachment of the suffix -ard to a noun or verb to form a proper noun. For example, the noun faluche means "student hat". The word faluchard formed from faluche colloquially can mean, depending on context, "a group of students", "a gathering of students" and "behavior typical of a student". The Google translator as of 28 December 2006 doesn't derive the constructed words as for example from rule (b), as shown here: Il y a une chorale falucharde mercredi, venez nombreux, les faluchards chantent des paillardes! ==> There is a choral society falucharde Wednesday, come many, the faluchards sing loose-living women! French argot has three levels of usage: familier or friendly, acceptable among friends, family and peers but not at work grossier or swear words, acceptable among friends and peers but not at work or in family verlan or ghetto slang, acceptable among lower classes but not among middle or upper classes The United States National Institute of Standards and Technology conducts annual evaluations [1] Archived 2009-03-22 at the Wayback Machine of machine translation systems based on the BLEU-4 criterion [2]. A combined method called IQmt which incorporates BLEU and additional metrics NIST, GTM, ROUGE and METEOR has been implemented by Gimenez and Amigo [3]. == Well-formed output == Is the output grammatical or well-formed in the target language? Using an interlingua should be helpful in this regard, because with a fixed interlingua one should be able to write a grammatical mapping to the target language from the interlingua. Consider the following Arabic language input and English language translation result from the Google translator as of 27 December 2006 [4]. This Google translator output doesn't parse using a reasonable English grammar: وعن حوادث التدافع عند شعيرة رمي الجمرات -التي كثيرا ما يسقط فيها العديد من الضحايا- أشار الأمير نايف إلى إدخال "تحسينات كثيرة في جسر الجمرات ستمنع بإذن الله حدوث أي تزاحم". ==> And incidents at the push Carbuncles-throwing ritual, which often fall where many of the victims - Prince Nayef pointed to the introduction of "many improvements in bridge Carbuncles God would stop the occurrence of any competing." == Semantics preservation == Do repeated re-translations preserve the semantics of the original sentence? For example, consider the following English input passed multiple times into and out of French using the Google translator as of 27 December 2006: Better a day earlier than a day late. ==> Améliorer un jour plus tôt qu'un jour tard. ==> To improve one day earlier than a day late. ==> Pour améliorer un jour plus tôt qu'un jour tard. ==> To improve one day earlier than a day late. As noted above and in, this kind of round-trip translation is a very unreliable method of evaluation. == Trustworthiness and security == An interesting peculiarity of Google Translate as of 24 January 2008 (corrected as of 25 January 2008) is the following result when translating from English to Spanish, which shows an embedded joke in the English-Spanish dictionary which has some added poignancy given recent events: Heath Ledger is dead ==> Tom Cruise está muerto This raises the issue of trustworthiness when relying on a machine translation system embedded in a Life-critical system in which the translation system has input to a Safety Critical Decision Making process. Conjointly it raises the issue of whether in a given use the software of the machine translation system is safe from hackers. It is not known whether this feature of Google Translate was the result of a joke/hack or perhaps an unintended consequence of the use of a method such as statistical machine translation. Reporters from CNET Networks asked Google for an explanation on January 24, 2008; Google said only that it was an "internal issue with Google Translate". The mistranslation was the subject of much hilarity and speculation on the Internet. If it is an unintended consequence of the use of a method such as statistical machine translation, and not a joke/hack, then this event is a demonstration of a potential source of critical unreliability in the statistical machine translation method. In human translations, in particular on the part of interpreters, selectivity on the part of the translator in performing a translation is often commented on when one of the two parties being served by the interpreter knows both languages. This leads to the issue of whether a particular translation could be considered verifiable. In this case, a converging round-trip translation would be a kind of verification.
List of video editing software
The following is a list of video editing software. The criterion for inclusion in this list is the ability to perform non-linear video editing. Most modern transcoding software supports transcoding a portion of a video clip, which would count as cropping and trimming. However, items in this article have one of the following conditions: Can perform other non-linear video editing function such as montage or compositing Can do the trimming or cropping without transcoding == Free (libre) or open-source == The software listed in this section is either free software or open source, and may or may not be commercial. === Active and stable === === Inactive === == Proprietary (non-commercial) == The software listed in this section is proprietary, and freeware or freemium. === Active === === Discontinued === == Proprietary (commercial) == The software listed in this section is proprietary and commercial. === Active === === Discontinued ===
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.