Open Sound Control (OSC) is a protocol for networking sound synthesizers, computers, and other multimedia devices for purposes such as musical performance or show control. OSC's advantages include interoperability, accuracy, flexibility and enhanced organization and documentation. Its disadvantages include higher bandwidth requirements, increased load on embedded processors, and lack of standardized messages/interoperability. The first specification was released in March 2002. == Motivation == OSC is a content format developed at CNMAT by Adrian Freed and Matt Wright comparable to XML, WDDX, or JSON. It was originally intended for sharing music performance data (gestures, parameters and note sequences) between musical instruments (especially electronic musical instruments such as synthesizers), computers, and other multimedia devices. OSC is sometimes used as an alternative to the 1983 MIDI standard, when higher resolution and a richer parameter space is desired. OSC messages are transported across the internet and within local subnets using UDP/IP and Ethernet. OSC messages between gestural controllers are usually transmitted over serial endpoints of USB wrapped in the SLIP protocol. == Features == OSC's main features, compared to MIDI, include: Open-ended, dynamic, URI-style symbolic naming scheme Symbolic and high-resolution numeric data Pattern matching language to specify multiple recipients of a single message High resolution time tags "Bundles" of messages whose effects must occur simultaneously == Applications == There are dozens of OSC applications, including real-time sound and media processing environments, web interactivity tools, software synthesizers, programming languages and hardware devices. OSC has achieved wide use in fields including musical expression, robotics, video performance interfaces, distributed music systems and inter-process communication. The TUIO community standard for tangible interfaces such as multitouch is built on top of OSC. Similarly the GDIF system for representing gestures integrates OSC. OSC is used extensively in experimental musical controllers, and has been built into several open source and commercial products. The Open Sound World (OSW) music programming language is designed around OSC messaging. OSC is the heart of the DSSI plugin API, an evolution of the LADSPA API, in order to make the eventual GUI interact with the core of the plugin via messaging the plugin host. LADSPA and DSSI are APIs dedicated to audio effects and synthesizers. In 2007, a standardized namespace within OSC called SYN, for communication between controllers, synthesizers and hosts, was proposed. == Design == OSC messages consist of an address pattern (such as /oscillator/4/frequency), a type tag string (such as ,fi for a float32 argument followed by an int32 argument), and the arguments themselves (which may include a time tag). Address patterns form a hierarchical name space, reminiscent of a Unix filesystem path, or a URL, and refer to "Methods" inside the server, which are invoked with the attached arguments. Type tag strings are a compact string representation of the argument types. Arguments are represented in binary form with four-byte alignment. The core types supported are 32-bit two's complement signed integers 32-bit IEEE floating point numbers Null-terminated arrays of eight-bit encoded data (C-style strings) arbitrary sized blob (e.g. audio data, or a video frame) An example message is included in the spec (with null padding bytes represented by ␀): /oscillator/4/frequency␀,f␀␀, Followed by the 4-byte float32 representation of 440.0: 0x43dc0000. Messages may be combined into bundles, which themselves may be combined into bundles, etc. Each bundle contains a timestamp, which determines whether the server should respond immediately or at some point in the future. Applications commonly employ extensions to this core set. More recently some of these extensions such as a compact Boolean type were integrated into the required core types of OSC 1.1. The advantages of OSC over MIDI are primarily internet connectivity; data type resolution; and the comparative ease of specifying a symbolic path, as opposed to specifying all connections as seven-bit numbers with seven-bit or fourteen-bit data types. This human-readability has the disadvantage of being inefficient to transmit and more difficult to parse by embedded firmware, however. The spec does not define any particular OSC Methods or OSC Containers. All messages are implementation-defined and vary from server to server.
Hit-testing
In computer graphics programming, hit-testing (hit detection, picking, or pick correlation) is the process of determining whether a user-controlled cursor (such as a mouse cursor or touch-point on a touch-screen interface) intersects a given graphical object (such as a shape, line, or curve) drawn on the screen. Hit-testing may be performed on the movement or activation of a mouse or other pointing device. Hit-testing is used by GUI environments to respond to user actions, such as selecting a menu item or a target in a game based on its visual location. In web programming languages such as HTML, SVG, and CSS, this is associated with the concept of pointer-events (e.g. user-initiated cursor movement or object selection). Collision detection is a related concept for detecting intersections of two or more different graphical objects, rather than intersection of a cursor with one or more graphical objects. == Algorithm == There are many different algorithms that may be used to perform hit-testing, with different performance or accuracy outcomes. One common hit-test algorithm for axis aligned bounding boxes. A key idea is that the box being tested must be either entirely above, entirely below, entirely to the right or left of the current box. If this is not possible, they are colliding. Example logic is presented in the pseudo-code below: In Python:
IBM alignment models
The IBM alignment models are a sequence of increasingly complex models used in statistical machine translation to train a translation model and an alignment model, starting with lexical translation probabilities and moving to reordering and word duplication. They underpinned the majority of statistical machine translation systems for almost twenty years starting in the early 1990s, until neural machine translation began to dominate. These models offer principled probabilistic formulation and (mostly) tractable inference. The IBM alignment models were published in parts in 1988 and 1990, and the entire series is published in 1993. Every author of the 1993 paper subsequently went to the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies. The original work on statistical machine translation at IBM proposed five models, and a model 6 was proposed later. The sequence of the six models can be summarized as: Model 1: lexical translation Model 2: additional absolute alignment model Model 3: extra fertility model Model 4: added relative alignment model Model 5: fixed deficiency problem. Model 6: Model 4 combined with a HMM alignment model in a log linear way == Mathematical setup == The IBM alignment models translation as a conditional probability model. For each source-language ("foreign") sentence f {\displaystyle f} , we generate both a target-language ("English") sentence e {\displaystyle e} and an alignment a {\displaystyle a} . The problem then is to find a good statistical model for p ( e , a | f ) {\displaystyle p(e,a|f)} , the probability that we would generate English language sentence e {\displaystyle e} and an alignment a {\displaystyle a} given a foreign sentence f {\displaystyle f} . The meaning of an alignment grows increasingly complicated as the model version number grew. See Model 1 for the most simple and understandable version. == Model 1 == === Word alignment === Given any foreign-English sentence pair ( e , f ) {\displaystyle (e,f)} , an alignment for the sentence pair is a function of type { 1 , . , . . . , l e } → { 0 , 1 , . , . . . , l f } {\displaystyle \{1,.,...,l_{e}\}\to \{0,1,.,...,l_{f}\}} . That is, we assume that the English word at location i {\displaystyle i} is "explained" by the foreign word at location a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} . For example, consider the following pair of sentences It will surely rain tomorrow -- 明日 は きっと 雨 だWe can align some English words to corresponding Japanese words, but not everyone:it -> ? will -> ? surely -> きっと rain -> 雨 tomorrow -> 明日This in general happens due to the different grammar and conventions of speech in different languages. English sentences require a subject, and when there is no subject available, it uses a dummy pronoun it. Japanese verbs do not have different forms for future and present tense, and the future tense is implied by the noun 明日 (tomorrow). Conversely, the topic-marker は and the grammar word だ (roughly "to be") do not correspond to any word in the English sentence. So, we can write the alignment as 1-> 0; 2 -> 0; 3 -> 3; 4 -> 4; 5 -> 1where 0 means that there is no corresponding alignment. Thus, we see that the alignment function is in general a function of type { 1 , . , . . . , l e } → { 0 , 1 , . , . . . , l f } {\displaystyle \{1,.,...,l_{e}\}\to \{0,1,.,...,l_{f}\}} . Future models will allow one English world to be aligned with multiple foreign words. === Statistical model === Given the above definition of alignment, we can define the statistical model used by Model 1: Start with a "dictionary". Its entries are of form t ( e i | f j ) {\displaystyle t(e_{i}|f_{j})} , which can be interpreted as saying "the foreign word f j {\displaystyle f_{j}} is translated to the English word e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} with probability t ( e i | f j ) {\displaystyle t(e_{i}|f_{j})} ". After being given a foreign sentence f {\displaystyle f} with length l f {\displaystyle l_{f}} , we first generate an English sentence length l e {\displaystyle l_{e}} uniformly in a range U n i f o r m [ 1 , 2 , . . . , N ] {\displaystyle Uniform[1,2,...,N]} . In particular, it does not depend on f {\displaystyle f} or l f {\displaystyle l_{f}} . Then, we generate an alignment uniformly in the set of all possible alignment functions { 1 , . , . . . , l e } → { 0 , 1 , . , . . . , l f } {\displaystyle \{1,.,...,l_{e}\}\to \{0,1,.,...,l_{f}\}} . Finally, for each English word e 1 , e 2 , . . . e l e {\displaystyle e_{1},e_{2},...e_{l_{e}}} , generate each one independently of every other English word. For the word e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} , generate it according to t ( e i | f a ( i ) ) {\displaystyle t(e_{i}|f_{a(i)})} . Together, we have the probability p ( e , a | f ) = 1 / N ( 1 + l f ) l e ∏ i = 1 l e t ( e i | f a ( i ) ) {\displaystyle p(e,a|f)={\frac {1/N}{(1+l_{f})^{l_{e}}}}\prod _{i=1}^{l_{e}}t(e_{i}|f_{a(i)})} IBM Model 1 uses very simplistic assumptions on the statistical model, in order to allow the following algorithm to have closed-form solution. === Learning from a corpus === If a dictionary is not provided at the start, but we have a corpus of English-foreign language pairs { ( e ( k ) , f ( k ) ) } k {\displaystyle \{(e^{(k)},f^{(k)})\}_{k}} (without alignment information), then the model can be cast into the following form: fixed parameters: the foreign sentences { f ( k ) } k {\displaystyle \{f^{(k)}\}_{k}} . learnable parameters: the entries of the dictionary t ( e i | f j ) {\displaystyle t(e_{i}|f_{j})} . observable variables: the English sentences { e ( k ) } k {\displaystyle \{e^{(k)}\}_{k}} . latent variables: the alignments { a ( k ) } k {\displaystyle \{a^{(k)}\}_{k}} In this form, this is exactly the kind of problem solved by expectation–maximization algorithm. Due to the simplistic assumptions, the algorithm has a closed-form, efficiently computable solution, which is the solution to the following equations: { max t ′ ∑ k ∑ i ∑ a ( k ) t ( a ( k ) | e ( k ) , f ( k ) ) ln t ( e i ( k ) | f a ( k ) ( i ) ( k ) ) ∑ x t ′ ( e x | f y ) = 1 ∀ y {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}\max _{t'}\sum _{k}\sum _{i}\sum _{a^{(k)}}t(a^{(k)}|e^{(k)},f^{(k)})\ln t(e_{i}^{(k)}|f_{a^{(k)}(i)}^{(k)})\\\sum _{x}t'(e_{x}|f_{y})=1\quad \forall y\end{cases}}} This can be solved by Lagrangian multipliers, then simplified. For a detailed derivation of the algorithm, see chapter 4 and. In short, the EM algorithm goes as follows:INPUT. a corpus of English-foreign sentence pairs { ( e ( k ) , f ( k ) ) } k {\displaystyle \{(e^{(k)},f^{(k)})\}_{k}} INITIALIZE. matrix of translations probabilities t ( e x | f y ) {\displaystyle t(e_{x}|f_{y})} .This could either be uniform or random. It is only required that every entry is positive, and for each y {\displaystyle y} , the probability sums to one: ∑ x t ( e x | f y ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{x}t(e_{x}|f_{y})=1} . LOOP. until t ( e x | f y ) {\displaystyle t(e_{x}|f_{y})} converges: t ( e x | f y ) ← t ( e x | f y ) λ y ∑ k , i , j δ ( e x , e i ( k ) ) δ ( f y , f j ( k ) ) ∑ j ′ t ( e i ( k ) | f j ′ ( k ) ) {\displaystyle t(e_{x}|f_{y})\leftarrow {\frac {t(e_{x}|f_{y})}{\lambda _{y}}}\sum _{k,i,j}{\frac {\delta (e_{x},e_{i}^{(k)})\delta (f_{y},f_{j}^{(k)})}{\sum _{j'}t(e_{i}^{(k)}|f_{j'}^{(k)})}}} where each λ y {\displaystyle \lambda _{y}} is a normalization constant that makes sure each ∑ x t ( e x | f y ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{x}t(e_{x}|f_{y})=1} .RETURN. t ( e x | f y ) {\displaystyle t(e_{x}|f_{y})} .In the above formula, δ {\displaystyle \delta } is the Dirac delta function -- it equals 1 if the two entries are equal, and 0 otherwise. The index notation is as follows: k {\displaystyle k} ranges over English-foreign sentence pairs in corpus; i {\displaystyle i} ranges over words in English sentences; j {\displaystyle j} ranges over words in foreign language sentences; x {\displaystyle x} ranges over the entire vocabulary of English words in the corpus; y {\displaystyle y} ranges over the entire vocabulary of foreign words in the corpus. === Limitations === There are several limitations to the IBM model 1. No fluency: Given any sentence pair ( e , f ) {\displaystyle (e,f)} , any permutation of the English sentence is equally likely: p ( e | f ) = p ( e ′ | f ) {\displaystyle p(e|f)=p(e'|f)} for any permutation of the English sentence e {\displaystyle e} into e ′ {\displaystyle e'} . No length preference: The probability of each length of translation is equal: ∑ e has length l p ( e | f ) = 1 N {\displaystyle \sum _{e{\text{ has length }}l}p(e|f)={\frac {1}{N}}} for any l ∈ { 1 , 2 , . . . , N } {\displaystyle l\in \{1,2,...,N\}} . Does not explicitly model fertility: some foreign words tend to produce a fixed number of English words. For example, for German-to-English translation, ja is usually omitted, and zum is usually translated to one of to the, for the, to a, for a. == Model 2 == Model 2 allows alignment to be conditional on sentence lengths. That is, we have a probability distribution p a ( j | i , l e , l f ) {\displaystyle
Maghi King
Margaret (Maghi) Daniel King is a retired British computational linguist known for her work on evaluating the quality of machine translation. She is an honorary professor in the Department of Translation Technology of the University of Geneva in Switzerland, and the former director of the Dalle Molle Institute for Semantic and Cognitive Studies at the University of Geneva. == Education and career == King read classics, Ancient History and Philosophy (Greats) at the University of Oxford, worked as a computer programmer, and became a lecturer in the Department of Computation at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. She moved to the Dalle Molle Institute for Semantic and Cognitive Studies (ISSCO) in 1974. In 1976, ISSCO became part of the University of Geneva, and she continued there, becoming ISSCO's director in 1978. She remained director until her retirement in 2006. == Recognition == King is a Fellow of the European Association for Artificial Intelligence (formerly ECCAI), elected in 1999.
Machine-readable medium and data
In communications and computing, a machine-readable medium (or computer-readable medium) is a medium capable of storing data in a format easily readable by a digital computer or a sensor. It contrasts with human-readable medium and data. The result is called machine-readable data or computer-readable data, and the data itself can be described as having machine-readability. == Data == Machine-readable data must be structured data. Attempts to create machine-readable data occurred as early as the 1960s. At the same time that seminal developments in machine-reading and natural-language processing were releasing (like Weizenbaum's ELIZA), people were anticipating the success of machine-readable functionality and attempting to create machine-readable documents. One such example was musicologist Nancy B. Reich's creation of a machine-readable catalog of composer William Jay Sydeman's works in 1966. In the United States, the OPEN Government Data Act of 14 January 2019 defines machine-readable data as "data in a format that can be easily processed by a computer without human intervention while ensuring no semantic meaning is lost." The law directs U.S. federal agencies to publish public data in such a manner, ensuring that "any public data asset of the agency is machine-readable". Machine-readable data may be classified into two groups: human-readable data that is marked up so that it can also be read by machines (e.g. microformats, RDFa, HTML), and data file formats intended principally for processing by machines (CSV, RDF, XML, JSON). These formats are only machine readable if the data contained within them is formally structured; exporting a CSV file from a badly structured spreadsheet does not meet the definition. Machine readable is not synonymous with digitally accessible. A digitally accessible document may be online, making it easier for humans to access via computers, but its content is much harder to extract, transform, and process via computer programming logic if it is not machine-readable. Extensible Markup Language (XML) is designed to be both human- and machine-readable, and Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations (XSLT) is used to improve the presentation of the data for human readability. For example, XSLT can be used to automatically render XML in Portable Document Format (PDF). Machine-readable data can be automatically transformed for human-readability but, generally speaking, the reverse is not true. For purposes of implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines "machine readable format" as follows: "Format in a standard computer language (not English text) that can be read automatically by a web browser or computer system. (e.g.; xml). Traditional word processing documents and portable document format (PDF) files are easily read by humans but typically are difficult for machines to interpret. Other formats such as extensible markup language (XML), (JSON), or spreadsheets with header columns that can be exported as comma separated values (CSV) are machine readable formats. As HTML is a structural markup language, discreetly labeling parts of the document, computers are able to gather document components to assemble tables of contents, outlines, literature search bibliographies, etc. It is possible to make traditional word processing documents and other formats machine readable but the documents must include enhanced structural elements." == Media == Examples of machine-readable media include magnetic media such as magnetic disks, cards, tapes, and drums, punched cards and paper tapes, optical discs, barcodes and magnetic ink characters. Common machine-readable technologies include magnetic recording, processing waveforms, and barcodes. Optical character recognition (OCR) can be used to enable machines to read information available to humans. Any information retrievable by any form of energy can be machine-readable. Examples include: Acoustics Chemical Photochemical Electrical Semiconductor used in volatile RAM microchips Floating-gate transistor used in non-volatile memory cards Radio transmission Magnetic storage Mechanical Tins And Swins Punched card Paper tape Music roll Music box cylinder or disk Grooves (See also: Audio Data) Phonograph cylinder Gramophone record DictaBelt (groove on plastic belt) Capacitance Electronic Disc Optics Optical storage Thermodynamic == Applications == === Documents === === Catalogs === === Dictionaries === === Passports ===
Google Books Ngram Viewer
The Google Books Ngram Viewer is an online search engine that charts the frequencies of any set of search strings using a yearly count of n-grams found in printed sources published between 1500 and 2022 in Google's text corpora in English, Chinese (simplified), French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Russian, or Spanish. There are also some specialized English corpora, such as American English, British English, and English Fiction. The program can search for a word or a phrase. The n-grams are matched with the text within the selected corpus, and if found in 40 or more books, are then displayed as a graph. The program supports searches for parts of speech and wildcards. It is routinely used in research. == History == The Ngram Viewer was created by Google software engineers Will Brockman and Jon Orwant , who teamed up with Harvard researchers Jean-Baptiste Michel and Erez Lieberman Aiden. The service was released on December 16, 2010. Before the release, it was difficult to quantify the rate of linguistic change because of the absence of a database that was designed for this purpose, said Steven Pinker, a well-known linguist who was one of the co-authors of the Science paper published on the same day. The Google Books Ngram Viewer was developed in the hope of opening a new window to quantitative research in the humanities field, and the database contained 500 billion words from 5.2 million books publicly available from the very beginning. The intended audience was scholarly, but the Google Books Ngram Viewer made it possible for anyone with a computer to see a graph that represents the diachronic change of the use of words and phrases with ease. Lieberman said in response to The New York Times that the developers aimed to provide even children with the ability to browse cultural trends throughout history. In the Science paper, Lieberman and his collaborators called the method of high-volume data analysis in digitized texts "culturomics". == Usage == Commas delimit user-entered search terms, where each comma-separated term is searched in the database as an n-gram (for example, "nursery school" is a 2-gram or bigram). The Ngram Viewer then returns a plotted line chart. Due to limitations on the size of the Ngram database, only matches found in at least 40 books are indexed. == Limitations == The data sets of the Ngram Viewer have been criticized for their reliance upon inaccurate optical character recognition (OCR) and for including large numbers of incorrectly dated and categorized texts. Because of these errors, and because they are uncontrolled for bias (such as the increasing amount of scientific literature, which causes other terms to appear to decline in popularity), care must be taken in using the corpora to study language or test theories. Furthermore, the data sets may not reflect general linguistic or cultural change and can only hint at such an effect because they do not involve any metadata like date published, author, length, or genre, to avoid any potential copyright infringements. Systemic errors like the confusion of s and f in pre-19th century texts (due to the use of ſ, the long s, which is similar in appearance to f) can cause systemic bias. Although the Google Books team claims that the results are reliable from 1800 onwards, poor OCR and insufficient data mean that frequencies given for languages such as Chinese may only be accurate from 1970 onward, with earlier parts of the corpus showing no results at all for common terms, and data for some years containing more than 50% noise. Guidelines for doing research with data from Google Ngram have been proposed that try to address some of the issues discussed above.
Language model
A language model is a computational model that predicts sequences in natural language. Language models are useful for a variety of tasks, including speech recognition, machine translation, natural language generation (generating more human-like text), optical character recognition, route optimization, handwriting recognition, grammar induction, information retrieval and disaster response. Large language models (LLMs), currently their most advanced form as of 2026, are predominantly based on transformers trained on larger datasets (frequently using texts scraped from the public internet). They have superseded recurrent neural network-based models, which had previously superseded the purely statistical models, such as the word n-gram language model. == History == Noam Chomsky did pioneering work on language models in the 1950s by developing a theory of formal grammars. In 1980, statistical approaches were explored and found to be more useful for many purposes than rule-based formal grammars. Discrete representations like word n-gram language models, with probabilities for discrete combinations of words, made significant advances. In the 2000s, continuous representations for words, such as word embeddings, began to replace discrete representations. Typically, the representation is a real-valued vector that encodes a word’s meaning such that words closer in vector space are similar in meaning and common relationships between words, such as plurality or gender, are preserved. == Pure statistical models == In 1980, the first significant statistical language model was proposed, and during the decade IBM performed 'Shannon-style' experiments, in which potential sources for language modeling improvement were identified by observing and analyzing the performance of human subjects in predicting or correcting text. === Models based on word n-grams === === Exponential === Maximum entropy language models encode the relationship between a word and the n-gram history using feature functions. The equation is P ( w m ∣ w 1 , … , w m − 1 ) = 1 Z ( w 1 , … , w m − 1 ) exp ( a T f ( w 1 , … , w m ) ) {\displaystyle P(w_{m}\mid w_{1},\ldots ,w_{m-1})={\frac {1}{Z(w_{1},\ldots ,w_{m-1})}}\exp(a^{T}f(w_{1},\ldots ,w_{m}))} where Z ( w 1 , … , w m − 1 ) {\displaystyle Z(w_{1},\ldots ,w_{m-1})} is the partition function, a {\displaystyle a} is the parameter vector, and f ( w 1 , … , w m ) {\displaystyle f(w_{1},\ldots ,w_{m})} is the feature function. In the simplest case, the feature function is just an indicator of the presence of a certain n-gram. It is helpful to use a prior on a {\displaystyle a} or some form of regularization. The log-bilinear model is another example of an exponential language model. === Skip-gram model === == Neural models == === Recurrent neural network === Continuous representations or embeddings of words are produced in recurrent neural network-based language models (known also as continuous space language models). Such continuous space embeddings help to alleviate the curse of dimensionality, which is the consequence of the number of possible sequences of words increasing exponentially with the size of the vocabulary, further causing a data sparsity problem. Neural networks avoid this problem by representing words as non-linear combinations of weights in a neural net. === Large language models === Although sometimes matching human performance, it is not clear whether they are plausible cognitive models. At least for recurrent neural networks, it has been shown that they sometimes learn patterns that humans do not, but fail to learn patterns that humans typically do. == Evaluation and benchmarks == Evaluation of the quality of language models is mostly done by comparison to human created sample benchmarks created from typical language-oriented tasks. Other, less established, quality tests examine the intrinsic character of a language model or compare two such models. Since language models are typically intended to be dynamic and to learn from data they see, some proposed models investigate the rate of learning, e.g., through inspection of learning curves. Various data sets have been developed for use in evaluating language processing systems. These include: Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability GLUE benchmark Microsoft Research Paraphrase Corpus Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference Question Natural Language Inference Quora Question Pairs Recognizing Textual Entailment Semantic Textual Similarity Benchmark SQuAD question answering Test Stanford Sentiment Treebank Winograd NLI BoolQ, PIQA, SIQA, HellaSwag, WinoGrande, ARC, OpenBookQA, NaturalQuestions, TriviaQA, RACE, BIG-bench hard, GSM8k, RealToxicityPrompts, WinoGender, CrowS-Pairs