Cepstral mean and variance normalization (CMVN) is a computationally efficient normalization technique for robust speech recognition. The performance of CMVN is known to degrade for short utterances. This is due to insufficient data for parameter estimation and loss of discriminable information as all utterances are forced to have zero mean and unit variance. CMVN minimizes distortion by noise contamination for robust feature extraction by linearly transforming the cepstral coefficients to have the same segmental statistics. Cepstral Normalization has been effective in the CMU Sphinx for maintaining a high level of recognition accuracy over a wide variety of acoustical environments. == Cepstral Normalization Techniques == There are multiple algorithms that achieve Cepstral Normalization in different ways. === Fixed codeword-dependent cepstral normalization (FCDCN) === FCDCN was developed to provide a form of compensation that provides greater recognition accuracy than SDCN but in a more computationally-efficient manner than the CDCN algorithm. The FCDCN algorithm applies an additive correction that depends on the instantaneous SNR of the input (like SDCN), but that can also vary from codeword to codeword (like CDCN). === Multiple Fixed Codeword-dependent Cepstral Normalization (MFCDCN) === MFCDCN is a simple extension of FCDCN algorithm that does not need environment specific training. In MFCDCN, compensation vectors are pre-computed in parallel for a set of target environments, using the FCDCN algorithm. === Incremental Multiple Fixed Codeword-dependent Cepstral Normalization (IMFCDCN) === While environment selection for the compensation vectors of MFCDCN is generally performed on an utterance-by-utterance basis, IMFCFCN improves on it by allowing the classification process to make use of cepstral vectors from previous utterances in a given session. == Cepstral Noise Subtraction == Automatic speech recognition (ASR) describes the steps of transcribing speech utterances represented as acoustic wave forms to written words. As is, CMVN has been used in different applications as this technique has proven to provide better speech recognitions results in different environments. CMVN has the capabilities to reduce differences between test and training data produced by channel distortions and colorizations . CMVN has also been found to be able to reduce differences in feature representation between speakers can also partly reduce the influence of background noise.
Inauthentic text
An inauthentic text is a computer-generated expository document meant to appear as genuine, but which is actually meaningless. Frequently they are created in order to be intermixed with genuine documents and thus manipulate the results of search engines, as with Spam blogs. They are also carried along in email in order to fool spam filters by giving the spam the superficial characteristics of legitimate text. Sometimes nonsensical documents are created with computer assistance for humorous effect, as with Dissociated press or Flarf poetry. They have also been used to challenge the veracity of a publication—MIT students submitted papers generated by a computer program called SCIgen to a conference, where they were initially accepted. This led the students to claim that the bar for submissions was too low. With the amount of computer generated text outpacing the ability of people to humans to curate it, there needs some means of distinguishing between the two. Yet automated approaches to determining absolutely whether a text is authentic or not face intrinsic challenges of semantics. Noam Chomsky coined the phrase "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" giving an example of grammatically correct, but semantically incoherent sentence; some will point out that in certain contexts one could give this sentence (or any phrase) meaning. The first group to use the expression in this regard can be found below from Indiana University. Their work explains in detail an attempt to detect inauthentic texts and identify pernicious problems of inauthentic texts in cyberspace. The site has a means of submitting text that assesses, based on supervised learning, whether a corpus is inauthentic or not. Many users have submitted incorrect types of data and have correspondingly commented on the scores. This application is meant for a specific kind of data; therefore, submitting, say, an email, will not return a meaningful score.
Linguistic Data Consortium
The Linguistic Data Consortium is an open consortium of universities, companies and government research laboratories. It creates, collects and distributes speech and text databases, lexicons, and other resources for linguistics research and development purposes. The University of Pennsylvania is the LDC's host institution. The LDC was founded in 1992 with a grant from the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and is partly supported by grant IRI-9528587 from the Information and Intelligent Systems division of the National Science Foundation. The director of LDC is Mark Liberman. It subsumed the previous ACL Data Collection Initiative. Part of the motivation was to support the benchmark-oriented methodology of DARPA's Human Language Technology program. Previously, John R. Pierce directed the committee that produced the ALPAC report (1966), which caused a severe decrease in funding for linguistic AI for about 10 years. Later, Charles Wayne restarted funding in speech and language in the mid-1980s. In order to avoid the criticisms from the ALPAC report, they needed a way to demonstrate objective progress, which led to the benchmark-oriented methodology. DARPA would propose specific quantifiable and testable score targets on benchmarks, and teams being funded would attempt to reach the score targets. It was noted that by 1993, the data needed for training and benchmarking the models was big enough that "Not even the largest companies can easily afford enough of [the needed] data... Researchers at smaller companies and in universities risk being frozen out of the process almost entirely." The LDC provided a central location for creating and dispensing such data. There is a membership fee that has been increased once since its founding.
Hans Uszkoreit
Hans Uszkoreit is a German computational linguist. Hans Uszkoreit studied Linguistics and Computer Science at Technische Universität Berlin and the University of Texas at Austin. While he was studying in Austin, he also worked as a research associate in a large machine translation project at the Linguistics Research Center. After he received his Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Texas, he worked as a computer scientist at the Artificial Intelligence Center and was affiliated with the Center for the Study of Language and Information at Stanford University. Nowadays, he is teaching as a professor of Computational Linguistics at Saarland University. Moreover, he serves as a Scientific Director at the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI) where he heads the DFKI Language Technology Lab. == Life and career == Hans Uszkoreit, a native of East Berlin, was actively involved in a group of young individuals who opposed the East Germany regime. His protesting against the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia led to his expulsion from high school and subsequent imprisonment for a period of fifteen months on charges of subversive agitation. Realizing that continuing his education in East Germany was not feasible, Uszkoreit made the decision to escape to West Berlin. There, he completed his high school education and pursued a degree in Linguistics and Computer Science at Technische Universität Berlin. During his time as a student, he worked part-time as an editor and writer for Zitty, a city magazine, which he co-founded. In 1977, Uszkoreit was granted a Fulbright Grant to further his studies at the University of Texas at Austin. During his time in Austin, he concurrently served as a research associate in a significant machine translation project. Subsequently, he received a second Fulbright grant, which enabled him to pursue a Ph.D. program in linguistics. In 1984, he successfully completed his doctoral studies, earning a Ph.D. in linguistics. Between 1982 and 1986, Uszkoreit held the position of a computer scientist at the Artificial Intelligence Center of SRI International in Menlo Park, California. In 1988, he created the Department of Computational Linguistics and Phonetics at Saarland University. In 1989 he was elected head of the Language Technology Lab at DFKI. In 2012, Uszkoreit's achievements in the domain of relation extraction led to his receipt of a Google Faculty Research Award, acknowledging the substantial progress made by Uszkoreit and his team in advancing the field. In 2013, Uszkoreit, in collaboration with Feiyu Xu and Roberto Navigli, was granted an additional Google Research Award, which provided support for a targeted project within Google's Language Understanding Program, focusing on the augmentation of language comprehension and analysis. == Personal life == He is father of a son Jakob Uszkoreit, machine learning researcher scientist, an author of the landmark paper "Attention Is All You Need", and daughter Lena Uszkoreit. == Awards == 2002 Elected Member of the European Academy of Sciences 2012 Google Faculty Research Award 2013 Google Focused Research Award
Anna Korhonen
Anna-Leena Korhonen is a Finnish computer scientist who works in England as professor of natural language processing at the University of Cambridge, where she is co-director of the Language Technology Lab and the Institute for Technology and Humanity, fellow of the Alan Turing Institute, director of the Centre for Human Inspired Artificial Intelligence, fellow of the European Laboratory for Learning and Intelligent Systems, and a senior research fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge. Her research interests include natural language processing, the applications of natural language processing in health, and the social consequences of AI-based language tools. == Education and career == Korhonen studied linguistics as an undergraduate at the University of Helsinki. After a master's degree in linguistics at the University of Reading, she completed a Ph.D. in computer science at the University of Cambridge. Her 2002 doctoral dissertation, Subcategorization acquisition, was supervised by Ted Briscoe. After postdoctoral research at the University of Pennsylvania and at the National Institute of Informatics in Japan, she returned to Cambridge in 2005 as a senior research associate and Royal Society University Research Fellow. She became a reader in computational linguistics in 2014, professor of natural language processing in 2017, director of the Centre for Human Inspired Artificial Intelligence in 2022, and co-director of the Institute for Technology and Humanity in 2024. == Recognition == Korhonen was named as a Fellow of the Association for Computational Linguistics in 2023, "for significant contributions to lexical acquisition, multilingual and low resource NLP, socially beneficial language applications, and services to the ACL community". She was elected to the Academia Europaea in 2025.
Security.txt
security.txt is an accepted standard for website security information that allows security researchers to report security vulnerabilities easily. The standard prescribes a text file named security.txt in the well known location, similar in syntax to robots.txt but intended to be machine and human readable, for those wishing to contact a website's owner about security issues. security.txt files have been adopted by Google, GitHub, LinkedIn, and Facebook. == History == The Internet Draft was first submitted by Edwin Foudil in September 2017. At that time it covered four directives, "Contact", "Encryption", "Disclosure" and "Acknowledgement". Foudil expected to add further directives based on feedback. In addition, web security expert Scott Helme said he had seen positive feedback from the security community while use among the top 1 million websites was "as low as expected right now". In 2019, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) published a draft binding operational directive that requires all US federal agencies to publish a security.txt file within 180 days. The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) issued a Last Call for security.txt in December 2019 which ended on January 6, 2020. A study in 2021 found that over ten percent of top-100 websites published a security.txt file, with the percentage of sites publishing the file decreasing as more websites were considered. The study also noted a number of discrepancies between the standard and the content of the file. In April 2022 the security.txt file has been accepted by Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as RFC 9116. == File format == security.txt files can be served under the /.well-known/ directory (i.e. /.well-known/security.txt) or the top-level directory (i.e. /security.txt) of a website. The file must be served over HTTPS and in plaintext format.
Tf–idf
In information retrieval, tf–idf (term frequency–inverse document frequency, TFIDF, TFIDF, TF–IDF, or Tf–idf) is a measure of importance of a word to a document in a collection or corpus, adjusted for the fact that some words appear more frequently in general. Like the bag-of-words model, it models a document as a multiset of words, without word order. It is a refinement over the simple bag-of-words model, by allowing the weight of words to depend on the rest of the corpus. It was often used as a weighting factor in searches of information retrieval, text mining, and user modeling. A survey conducted in 2015 showed that 83% of text-based recommender systems in digital libraries used tf–idf. Variations of the tf–idf weighting scheme were often used by search engines as a central tool in scoring and ranking a document's relevance given a user query. One of the simplest ranking functions is computed by summing the tf–idf for each query term; many more sophisticated ranking functions are variants of this simple model. == Motivations == Karen Spärck Jones (1972) conceived a statistical interpretation of term-specificity called Inverse Document Frequency (idf), which became a cornerstone of term weighting: The specificity of a term can be quantified as an inverse function of the number of documents in which it occurs.For example, the df (document frequency) and idf for some words in Shakespeare's 37 plays might be represented as follows: We see that "Romeo", "Falstaff", and "salad" appears in very few plays, so seeing these words, one could get a good idea as to which play it might be. In contrast, "good" and "sweet" appears in every play and are completely uninformative as to which play it is. == Definition == The tf–idf is the product of two statistics, term frequency and inverse document frequency. There are various ways for determining the exact values of both statistics. A formula that aims to define the importance of a keyword or phrase within a document or a web page. === Term frequency === Term frequency, tf(t,d), is the relative frequency of term t within document d, t f ( t , d ) = f t , d ∑ t ′ ∈ d f t ′ , d {\displaystyle \mathrm {tf} (t,d)={\frac {f_{t,d}}{\sum _{t'\in d}{f_{t',d}}}}} , where ft,d is the raw count of a term in a document, i.e., the number of times that term t occurs in document d. Note the denominator is simply the total number of terms in document d (counting each occurrence of the same term separately). There are various other ways to define term frequency: the raw count itself: tf(t,d) = ft,d Boolean "frequencies": tf(t,d) = 1 if t occurs in d and 0 otherwise; logarithmically scaled frequency: tf(t,d) = log (1 + ft,d); augmented frequency, to prevent a bias towards longer documents, e.g. raw frequency divided by the raw frequency of the most frequently occurring term in the document: t f ( t , d ) = 0.5 + 0.5 ⋅ f t , d max { f t ′ , d : t ′ ∈ d } {\displaystyle \mathrm {tf} (t,d)=0.5+0.5\cdot {\frac {f_{t,d}}{\max\{f_{t',d}:t'\in d\}}}} === Inverse document frequency === The inverse document frequency is a measure of how much information the word provides, i.e., how common or rare it is across all documents. It is the logarithmically scaled inverse fraction of the documents that contain the word (obtained by dividing the total number of documents by the number of documents containing the term, and then taking the logarithm of that quotient): i d f ( t , D ) = log N n t {\displaystyle \mathrm {idf} (t,D)=\log {\frac {N}{n_{t}}}} with D {\displaystyle D} : is the set of all documents in the corpus N = | D | {\displaystyle N={|D|}} : total number of documents in the corpus n t = | { d ∈ D : t ∈ d } | {\displaystyle n_{t}=|\{d\in D:t\in d\}|} : number of documents where the term t {\displaystyle t} appears (i.e., t f ( t , d ) ≠ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {tf} (t,d)\neq 0} ). If the term is not in the corpus, this will lead to a division-by-zero. It is therefore common to adjust the numerator to 1 + N {\displaystyle 1+N} and the denominator to 1 + | { d ∈ D : t ∈ d } | {\displaystyle 1+|\{d\in D:t\in d\}|} . === Term frequency–inverse document frequency === Then tf–idf is calculated as t f i d f ( t , d , D ) = t f ( t , d ) ⋅ i d f ( t , D ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {tfidf} (t,d,D)=\mathrm {tf} (t,d)\cdot \mathrm {idf} (t,D)} A high weight in tf–idf is reached by a high term frequency (in the given document) and a low document frequency of the term in the whole collection of documents; the weights hence tend to filter out common terms. Since the ratio inside the idf's log function is always greater than or equal to 1, the value of idf (and tf–idf) is greater than or equal to 0. As a term appears in more documents, the ratio inside the logarithm approaches 1, bringing the idf and tf–idf closer to 0. == Justification of idf == Idf was introduced as "term specificity" by Karen Spärck Jones in a 1972 paper. Although it has worked well as a heuristic, its theoretical foundations have been troublesome for at least three decades afterward, with many researchers trying to find information theoretic justifications for it. Spärck Jones's own explanation did not propose much theory, aside from a connection to Zipf's law. Attempts have been made to put idf on a probabilistic footing, by estimating the probability that a given document d contains a term t as the relative document frequency, P ( t | D ) = | { d ∈ D : t ∈ d } | N , {\displaystyle P(t|D)={\frac {|\{d\in D:t\in d\}|}{N}},} so that we can define idf as i d f = − log P ( t | D ) = log 1 P ( t | D ) = log N | { d ∈ D : t ∈ d } | {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\mathrm {idf} &=-\log P(t|D)\\&=\log {\frac {1}{P(t|D)}}\\&=\log {\frac {N}{|\{d\in D:t\in d\}|}}\end{aligned}}} Namely, the inverse document frequency is the logarithm of "inverse" relative document frequency. This probabilistic interpretation in turn takes the same form as that of self-information. However, applying such information-theoretic notions to problems in information retrieval leads to problems when trying to define the appropriate event spaces for the required probability distributions: not only documents need to be taken into account, but also queries and terms. == Link with information theory == Both term frequency and inverse document frequency can be formulated in terms of information theory; it helps to understand why their product has a meaning in terms of joint informational content of a document. A characteristic assumption about the distribution p ( d , t ) {\displaystyle p(d,t)} is that: p ( d | t ) = 1 | { d ∈ D : t ∈ d } | {\displaystyle p(d|t)={\frac {1}{|\{d\in D:t\in d\}|}}} This assumption and its implications, according to Aizawa: "represent the heuristic that tf–idf employs." The conditional entropy of a "randomly chosen" document in the corpus D {\displaystyle D} , conditional to the fact it contains a specific term t {\displaystyle t} (and assuming that all documents have equal probability to be chosen) is: H ( D | T = t ) = − ∑ d p d | t log p d | t = − log 1 | { d ∈ D : t ∈ d } | = log | { d ∈ D : t ∈ d } | | D | + log | D | = − i d f ( t ) + log | D | {\displaystyle H({\cal {D}}|{\cal {T}}=t)=-\sum _{d}p_{d|t}\log p_{d|t}=-\log {\frac {1}{|\{d\in D:t\in d\}|}}=\log {\frac {|\{d\in D:t\in d\}|}{|D|}}+\log |D|=-\mathrm {idf} (t)+\log |D|} In terms of notation, D {\displaystyle {\cal {D}}} and T {\displaystyle {\cal {T}}} are "random variables" corresponding to respectively draw a document or a term. The mutual information can be expressed as M ( T ; D ) = H ( D ) − H ( D | T ) = ∑ t p t ⋅ ( H ( D ) − H ( D | W = t ) ) = ∑ t p t ⋅ i d f ( t ) {\displaystyle M({\cal {T}};{\cal {D}})=H({\cal {D}})-H({\cal {D}}|{\cal {T}})=\sum _{t}p_{t}\cdot (H({\cal {D}})-H({\cal {D}}|W=t))=\sum _{t}p_{t}\cdot \mathrm {idf} (t)} The last step is to expand p t {\displaystyle p_{t}} , the unconditional probability to draw a term, with respect to the (random) choice of a document, to obtain: M ( T ; D ) = ∑ t , d p t | d ⋅ p d ⋅ i d f ( t ) = ∑ t , d t f ( t , d ) ⋅ 1 | D | ⋅ i d f ( t ) = 1 | D | ∑ t , d t f ( t , d ) ⋅ i d f ( t ) . {\displaystyle M({\cal {T}};{\cal {D}})=\sum _{t,d}p_{t|d}\cdot p_{d}\cdot \mathrm {idf} (t)=\sum _{t,d}\mathrm {tf} (t,d)\cdot {\frac {1}{|D|}}\cdot \mathrm {idf} (t)={\frac {1}{|D|}}\sum _{t,d}\mathrm {tf} (t,d)\cdot \mathrm {idf} (t).} This expression shows that summing the Tf–idf of all possible terms and documents recovers the mutual information between documents and term taking into account all the specificities of their joint distribution. Each Tf–idf hence carries the "bit of information" attached to a term x document pair. == Link with statistical theory == Tf–idf is closely related to the negative logarithmically transformed p-value from a one-tailed formulation of Fisher's exact test when the underlying corpus documents satisfy certain idealized assumptions. More recently, tf–idf variants were shown to arise as components in the test st