Example-based machine translation (EBMT) is a method of machine translation often characterized by its use of a bilingual corpus with parallel texts as its main knowledge base at run-time. It is essentially a translation by analogy and can be viewed as an implementation of a case-based reasoning approach to machine learning. == Translation by analogy == At the foundation of example-based machine translation is the idea of translation by analogy. When applied to the process of human translation, the idea that translation takes place by analogy is a rejection of the idea that people translate sentences by doing deep linguistic analysis. Instead, it is founded on the belief that people translate by first decomposing a sentence into certain phrases, then by translating these phrases, and finally by properly composing these fragments into one long sentence. Phrasal translations are translated by analogy to previous translations. The principle of translation by analogy is encoded to example-based machine translation through the example translations that are used to train such a system. Other approaches to machine translation, including statistical machine translation, also use bilingual corpora to learn the process of translation. == History == Example-based machine translation was first suggested by Makoto Nagao in 1984. He pointed out that it is especially adapted to translation between two totally different languages, such as English and Japanese. In this case, one sentence can be translated into several well-structured sentences in another language, therefore, it is no use to do the deep linguistic analysis characteristic of rule-based machine translation. == Example == Example-based machine translation systems are trained from bilingual parallel corpora containing sentence pairs like the example shown in the table above. Sentence pairs contain sentences in one language with their translations into another. The particular example shows an example of a minimal pair, meaning that the sentences vary by just one element. These sentences make it simple to learn translations of portions of a sentence. For example, an example-based machine translation system would learn three units of translation from the above example: How much is that X ? corresponds to Ano X wa ikura desu ka. red umbrella corresponds to akai kasa small camera corresponds to chiisai kamera Composing these units can be used to produce novel translations in the future. For example, if we have been trained using some text containing the sentences: President Kennedy was shot dead during the parade. and The convict escaped on July 15th., then we could translate the sentence The convict was shot dead during the parade. by substituting the appropriate parts of the sentences. == Phrasal verbs == Example-based machine translation is best suited for sub-language phenomena like phrasal verbs. Phrasal verbs have highly context-dependent meanings. They are common in English, where they comprise a verb followed by an adverb and/or a preposition, which are called the particle to the verb. Phrasal verbs produce specialized context-specific meanings that may not be derived from the meaning of the constituents. There is almost always an ambiguity during word-to-word translation from source to the target language. As an example, consider the phrasal verb "put on" and its Hindustani translation. It may be used in any of the following ways: Ram put on the lights. (Switched on) (Hindustani translation: Jalana) Ram put on a cap. (Wear) (Hindustani translation: Pahenna)
Monitoring as a service
Monitoring as a service (MaaS) is a cloud-based framework for the deployment of monitoring functionalities for various other services and applications within the cloud. The most common application for MaaS is online state monitoring, which continuously tracks certain states of applications, networks, systems, instances or any element that may be deployable within the cloud.
CodeCheck
CodeCheck is a mobile app that provides consumers with information about the ingredients in cosmetic products, as well as the ingredients and nutritional values of food. Users can access this information by scanning the product’s barcode with a smartphone or by using a text-based search. The app is available for iOS and Android devices in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Netherlands. == History == CodeCheck was founded in 2010 as an association, online database, and app by Roman Bleichenbacher, who was then a student in Zurich. A website of the same name had already been launched in 2002, where users could enter information about ingredients, nutritional values, and manufacturers of products. The first round of financing took place in July 2014 and raised over 1.1 million Swiss francs, which coincided with the founding of CodeCheck AG. Investors included Doodle founders Myke Näf and Paul E. Sevinç. The company subsequently expanded to Austria and Germany. In the same year, Boris Manhart became CEO. CodeCheck GmbH was established in Berlin in 2016. The app became available in the United States in 2017 and in the United Kingdom in November 2019. In 2020, it was also launched in the Netherlands. Following insolvency proceedings, the app has been owned by Producto Check GmbH since 2022. == Functions == The app can be used to scan the barcode of food and cosmetic products. It then displays information about ingredients, nutritional values, manufacturers and certification labels. For many years, users were able to enter and edit product information themselves and indicate advantages and disadvantages of individual products. Since 2020, the app has placed greater emphasis on machine text recognition. The collected data is combined with substance ratings using an algorithm. These ratings are based on scientific studies and expert assessments, including those from the Consumer Advice Centre in Hamburg, Greenpeace, the WWF and the German Association for the Environment and Nature Conservation (BUND e. V.), and cannot be modified by users or manufacturers. The app also provides information on the sugar and fat content of food products. In addition, it indicates whether a product contains hormone-active substances, microplastics, palm oil, animal-derived ingredients, lactose or gluten. Since 2020, the app has displayed a climate score for food products in cooperation with the Eaternity Institute. == Financing == CodeCheck is primarily financed through native advertising and banner ads. Since 2018, the company has also offered analysis services and survey tools directly to fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) manufacturers. In addition, access to the API is available, enabling other companies to use the product database. With the introduction of a subscription model in 2019, the CodeCheck app can be used ad-free and in offline mode. Since 2021, CodeCheck has also offered its own “Green Label” certification for manufacturers. Products are certified if at least 90 percent of their ingredients are classified as harmless. == Awards == In May 2015, the app topped the download charts for the first time, reaching 2.3 million installations. By September 2019, the app had once again reached the top of the German app charts, surpassing five million downloads.
Word error rate
Word error rate (WER) is a common metric of the performance of a speech recognition or machine translation system. The WER metric typically ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates that the compared pieces of text are exactly identical, and 1 (or larger) indicates that they are completely different with no similarity. This way, a WER of 0.8 means that there is an 80% error rate for compared sentences. The general difficulty of measuring performance lies in the fact that the recognized word sequence can have a different length from the reference word sequence (supposedly the correct one). The WER is derived from the Levenshtein distance, working at the word level instead of the phoneme level. The WER is a valuable tool for comparing different systems as well as for evaluating improvements within one system. This kind of measurement, however, provides no details on the nature of translation errors and further work is therefore required to identify the main source(s) of error and to focus any research effort. This problem is solved by first aligning the recognized word sequence with the reference (spoken) word sequence using dynamic string alignment. Examination of this issue is seen through a theory called the power law that states the correlation between perplexity and word error rate. Word error rate can then be computed as: W E R = S + D + I N = S + D + I S + D + C {\displaystyle {\mathit {WER}}={\frac {S+D+I}{N}}={\frac {S+D+I}{S+D+C}}} where S is the number of substitutions, D is the number of deletions, I is the number of insertions, C is the number of correct words, N is the number of words in the reference (N=S+D+C) The intuition behind 'deletion' and 'insertion' is how to get from the reference to the hypothesis. So if we have the reference "This is wikipedia" and hypothesis "This _ wikipedia", we call it a deletion. Note that since N is the number of words in the reference, the word error rate can be larger than 1.0, namely if the number of insertions I is larger than the number of correct words C. When reporting the performance of a speech recognition system, sometimes word accuracy (WAcc) is used instead: W A c c = 1 − W E R = N − S − D − I N = C − I N {\displaystyle {\mathit {WAcc}}=1-{\mathit {WER}}={\frac {N-S-D-I}{N}}={\frac {C-I}{N}}} Since the WER can be larger than 1.0, the word accuracy can be smaller than 0.0. == Experiments == It is commonly believed that a lower word error rate shows superior accuracy in recognition of speech, compared with a higher word error rate. However, at least one study has shown that this may not be true. In a Microsoft Research experiment, it was shown that, if people were trained under "that matches the optimization objective for understanding", (Wang, Acero and Chelba, 2003) they would show a higher accuracy in understanding of language than other people who demonstrated a lower word error rate, showing that true understanding of spoken language relies on more than just high word recognition accuracy. == Other metrics == One problem with using a generic formula such as the one above, however, is that no account is taken of the effect that different types of error may have on the likelihood of successful outcome, e.g. some errors may be more disruptive than others and some may be corrected more easily than others. These factors are likely to be specific to the syntax being tested. A further problem is that, even with the best alignment, the formula cannot distinguish a substitution error from a combined deletion plus insertion error. Hunt (1990) has proposed the use of a weighted measure of performance accuracy where errors of substitution are weighted at unity but errors of deletion and insertion are both weighted only at 0.5, thus: W E R = S + 0.5 D + 0.5 I N {\displaystyle {\mathit {WER}}={\frac {S+0.5D+0.5I}{N}}} There is some debate, however, as to whether Hunt's formula may properly be used to assess the performance of a single system, as it was developed as a means of comparing more fairly competing candidate systems. A further complication is added by whether a given syntax allows for error correction and, if it does, how easy that process is for the user. There is thus some merit to the argument that performance metrics should be developed to suit the particular system being measured. Whichever metric is used, however, one major theoretical problem in assessing the performance of a system is deciding whether a word has been “mis-pronounced,” i.e. does the fault lie with the user or with the recogniser. This may be particularly relevant in a system which is designed to cope with non-native speakers of a given language or with strong regional accents. The pace at which words should be spoken during the measurement process is also a source of variability between subjects, as is the need for subjects to rest or take a breath. All such factors may need to be controlled in some way. For text dictation it is generally agreed that performance accuracy at a rate below 95% is not acceptable, but this again may be syntax and/or domain specific, e.g. whether there is time pressure on users to complete the task, whether there are alternative methods of completion, and so on. The term "Single Word Error Rate" is sometimes referred to as the percentage of incorrect recognitions for each different word in the system vocabulary. == Edit distance == The word error rate may also be referred to as the length normalized edit distance. The normalized edit distance between X and Y, d( X, Y ) is defined as the minimum of W( P ) / L ( P ), where P is an editing path between X and Y, W ( P ) is the sum of the weights of the elementary edit operations of P, and L(P) is the number of these operations (length of P).
ViEWER
ViEWER, the Virtual Environment Workbench for Education and Research, is a proprietary, freeware computer program for Microsoft Windows written by researchers at the University of Idaho for the study of visual perception and complex immersive three-dimensional environments. It was created using C++ and OpenGL, and has been used by Dr. Brian Dyre, Dr. Steffen Werner, Dr. Ernesto Bustamante, Dr. Ben Barton, and their undergraduate and graduate researchers in visual perception, signal detection, and child-safety experiments.
Representation collapse
Representation collapse is a phenomenon in machine learning and representation learning where a model maps different inputs to the same or very similar embeddings, which means it loses important information about how the data is spread out. It is frequently encountered in self-supervised learning, especially within contrastive and non-contrastive frameworks, when training objectives or model architectures do not maintain variance across representations. Collapse results in degenerate solutions characterized by uninformative learned features, significantly impairing downstream task performance. Various techniques have been proposed to mitigate representation collapse, including the use of negative samples, architectural asymmetry, stop-gradient operations, variance regularization, and redundancy reduction objectives, as seen in methods such as SimCLR, BYOL, and VICReg. Comprehending and averting representation collapse is regarded as a fundamental challenge in the advancement of stable and efficient self-supervised learning systems.
TIMIT
TIMIT is a corpus of phonemically and lexically transcribed speech of American English speakers of different sexes and dialects. Each transcribed element has been delineated in time. TIMIT was designed to further acoustic-phonetic knowledge and automatic speech recognition systems. It was commissioned by DARPA and corpus design was a joint effort between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, SRI International, and Texas Instruments (TI). The speech was recorded at TI, transcribed at MIT, and verified and prepared for publishing by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). There is also a telephone bandwidth version called NTIMIT (Network TIMIT). TIMIT and NTIMIT are not freely available — either membership of the Linguistic Data Consortium, or a monetary payment, is required for access to the dataset. == Data == TIMIT contains ~5 hours of speech, of 10 sentences spoken by each of 630 speakers. The sentences were randomly sampled from a corpus of 2342 sentences. The speakers were native speakers of American English, classified under 8 major dialect regions: New England, Northern, North Midland, South Midland, Southern, New York City, Western, Army Brat (moved around). The speakers were 70% male and 30% female. Recordings were made in a noise-isolated recording booth at Texas Instrument, using a semi-automatic computer system (STEROIDS) to control the presentation of prompts to the speaker and the recording. Two-channel recordings were made using a Sennheiser HMD 414 headset-mounted microphone and a Brüel & Kjær 1/2" far-field pressure microphone (#4165). The speech was digitized at a sample rate of 20 kHz then and downsampled to 16 kHz. == History == The TIMIT telephone corpus was an early attempt to create a database with speech samples. It was published in the year 1988 on CD-ROM and consists of only 10 sentences per speaker. Two 'dialect' sentences were read by each speaker, as well as another 8 sentences selected from a larger set Each sentence averages 3 seconds long and is spoken by 630 different speakers. It was the first notable attempt in creating and distributing a speech corpus and the overall project has produced costs of 1.5 million US$. An update was released in October 1990. It included full 630-speaker corpus; checked and corrected transcriptions; word-alignment transcriptions; NIST SPHERE-headered waveform files and header manipulation software; phonemic dictionary; new test and training subsets balanced for dialectal and phonetic coverage; more extensive documentation. The full name of the project is DARPA-TIMIT Acoustic-Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus and the acronym TIMIT stands for Texas Instruments/Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The main reason why a corpus of telephone speech was created was to train speech recognition software. In the Blizzard challenge, different software has the obligation to convert audio recordings into textual data and the TIMIT corpus was used as a standardized baseline.