Shape factors are dimensionless quantities used in image analysis and microscopy that numerically describe the shape of a particle, independent of its size. Shape factors are calculated from measured dimensions, such as diameter, chord lengths, area, perimeter, centroid, moments, etc. The dimensions of the particles are usually measured from two-dimensional cross-sections or projections, as in a microscope field, but shape factors also apply to three-dimensional objects. The particles could be the grains in a metallurgical or ceramic microstructure, or the microorganisms in a culture, for example. The dimensionless quantities often represent the degree of deviation from an ideal shape, such as a circle, sphere or equilateral polyhedron. Shape factors are often normalized, that is, the value ranges from zero to one. A shape factor equal to one usually represents an ideal case or maximum symmetry, such as a circle, sphere, square or cube. == Aspect ratio == The most common shape factor is the aspect ratio, a function of the largest diameter and the smallest diameter orthogonal to it: A R = d min d max {\displaystyle A_{R}={\frac {d_{\min }}{d_{\max }}}} The normalized aspect ratio varies from approaching zero for a very elongated particle, such as a grain in a cold-worked metal, to near unity for an equiaxed grain. The reciprocal of the right side of the above equation is also used, such that the AR varies from one to approaching infinity. == Circularity == Another very common shape factor is the circularity (or isoperimetric quotient), a function of the perimeter P and the area A: f circ = 4 π A P 2 {\displaystyle f_{\text{circ}}={\frac {4\pi A}{P^{2}}}} The circularity of a circle is 1, and much less than one for a starfish footprint. The reciprocal of the circularity equation is also used, such that fcirc varies from one for a circle to infinity. == Elongation shape factor == The less-common elongation shape factor is defined as the square root of the ratio of the two second moments in of the particle around its principal axes. f elong = i 2 i 1 {\displaystyle f_{\text{elong}}={\sqrt {\frac {i_{2}}{i_{1}}}}} == Compactness shape factor == The compactness shape factor is a function of the polar second moment in of a particle and a circle of equal area A. f comp = A 2 2 π i 1 2 + i 2 2 {\displaystyle f_{\text{comp}}={\frac {A^{2}}{2\pi {\sqrt {{i_{1}}^{2}+{i_{2}}^{2}}}}}} The fcomp of a circle is one, and much less than one for the cross-section of an I-beam. == Waviness shape factor == The waviness shape factor of the perimeter is a function of the convex portion Pcvx of the perimeter to the total. f wav = P cvx P {\displaystyle f_{\text{wav}}={\frac {P_{\text{cvx}}}{P}}} Some properties of metals and ceramics, such as fracture toughness, have been linked to grain shapes. == An application of shape factors == Greenland, the largest island in the world, has an area of 2,166,086 km2; a coastline (perimeter) of 39,330 km; a north–south length of 2670 km; and an east–west length of 1290 km. The aspect ratio of Greenland is A R = 1290 2670 = 0.483 {\displaystyle A_{R}={\frac {1290}{2670}}=0.483} The circularity of Greenland is f circ = 4 π ( 2166086 ) 39330 2 = 0.0176. {\displaystyle f_{\text{circ}}={\frac {4\pi (2166086)}{39330^{2}}}=0.0176.} The aspect ratio is agreeable with an eyeball-estimate on a globe. Such an estimate on a typical flat map, using the Mercator projection, would be less accurate due to the distorted scale at high latitudes. The circularity is deceptively low, due to the fjords that give Greenland a very jagged coastline (see the coastline paradox). A low value of circularity does not necessarily indicate a lack of symmetry, and shape factors are not limited to microscopic objects.
Hardware for artificial intelligence
Specialized computer hardware is often used to execute artificial intelligence (AI) programs faster, and with less energy, such as Lisp machines, neuromorphic engineering, event cameras, and physical neural networks. Since 2017, several consumer grade CPUs and SoCs have on-die NPUs. As of 2023, the market for AI hardware is dominated by GPUs. As of the 2020s, AI computation is dominated by graphics processing units (GPUs) and newer domain-specific accelerators such as Google's Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), AMD's Instinct MI300 series, and various on-device neural-processing units (NPUs) found in consumer hardware. == Scope == For the purposes of this article, AI hardware refers to computing components and systems specifically designed or optimized to accelerate artificial-intelligence workloads such as machine-learning training or inference. This includes general-purpose accelerators used for AI (for example, GPUs) and domain-specific accelerators (for example, TPUs, NPUs, and other AI ASICs). Event-based cameras are sometimes discussed in the context of neuromorphic computing, but they are input sensors rather than AI compute devices. Conversely, components such as memristors are basic circuit elements rather than specialized AI hardware when considered alone. == Lisp machines == Lisp machines were developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s to make artificial intelligence programs written in the programming language Lisp run faster. == Dataflow architecture == Dataflow architecture processors used for AI serve various purposes with varied implementations like the polymorphic dataflow Convolution Engine by Kinara (formerly Deep Vision), structure-driven dataflow by Hailo, and dataflow scheduling by Cerebras. == Component hardware == === AI accelerators === Since the 2010s, advances in computer hardware have led to more efficient methods for training deep neural networks that contain many layers of non-linear hidden units and a very large output layer. By 2019, graphics processing units (GPUs), often with AI-specific enhancements, had displaced central processing units (CPUs) as the dominant means to train large-scale commercial cloud AI. OpenAI estimated the hardware compute used in the largest deep learning projects from Alex Net (2012) to Alpha Zero (2017), and found a 300,000-fold increase in the amount of compute needed, with a doubling-time trend of 3.4 months. === General-purpose GPUs for AI === Since the 2010s, graphics processing units (GPUs) have been widely used to train and deploy deep learning models because of their highly parallel architecture and high memory bandwidth. Modern data-center GPUs include dedicated tensor or matrix-math units that accelerate neural-network operations. In 2022, NVIDIA introduced the Hopper-generation H100 GPU, adding FP8 precision support and faster interconnects for large-scale model training. AMD and other vendors have also developed GPUs and accelerators aimed at AI and high-performance computing workloads. === Domain-specific accelerators (ASICs / NPUs) === Beyond general-purpose GPUs, several companies have developed application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and neural processing units (NPUs) tailored for AI workloads. Google introduced the Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) in 2016 for deep-learning inference, with later generations supporting large-scale training through dense systolic-array designs and optical interconnects. Other vendors have released similar devices—such as Apple's Neural Engine and various on-device NPUs—that emphasize energy-efficient inference in mobile or edge computing environments. === Memory and interconnects === AI accelerators rely on fast memory and inter-chip links to manage the large data volumes of training and inference. High-bandwidth memory (HBM) stacks, standardized as HBM3 in 2022, provide terabytes-per-second throughput on modern GPUs and ASICs. These accelerators are often connected through dedicated fabrics such as NVIDIA's NVLink and NVSwitch or optical interconnects used in TPU systems to scale performance across thousands of chips.
The Best Free AI Pair Programmer for Beginners
Comparing the best AI pair programmer? An AI pair programmer is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI pair programmer slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Simon Godsill
Simon John Godsill (born 2 December 1965) is professor of statistical signal processing at the University of Cambridge, and a professorial fellow at Corpus Christi College. He is also a member of the Centre for Science and Policy. His main area of research is Bayesian statistics and stochastic sampling methodologies, particularly particle filtering. == Education == Godsill obtained both undergraduate and Ph.D. degrees from the Department of Engineering at Cambridge University, whilst a member of Selwyn College. He obtained a first class degree in the Electrical and Information Sciences Tripos. The title of his 1993 Ph.D. thesis was "The Restoration of Degraded Audio Signals" and his Ph.D. supervisor was Peter Rayner, whom he shared with Michael Richard Lynch. == Career == Godsill has published over 250 articles in peer reviewed journals, along with the books Digital audio restoration: a statistical model based approach and Compressed sensing & sparse filtering. == Business interests == Godsill is currently a director of CEDAR Audio Ltd, a Cambridge-based company that applies Bayesian mathematics for purposes of noise reduction in audio data. In February 2005, the company received a Sci-Tech Academy Award (a 'Technical Oscar') for its services to the movie industry, and a stream of innovations appeared over the following years with corresponding recognition including induction into the Audio Technology Hall of Fame (2008), a Cinema Audio Society Award (2009). Godsill is also a director at Input Dynamics Ltd, a Cambridge-based company that applies Bayesian techniques to touch screen technology. Godsill is involved with the research effort at BMLL Technologies, a Cambridge spin-off working in the field of machine learning application in the financial sector.
Simon Godsill
Simon John Godsill (born 2 December 1965) is professor of statistical signal processing at the University of Cambridge, and a professorial fellow at Corpus Christi College. He is also a member of the Centre for Science and Policy. His main area of research is Bayesian statistics and stochastic sampling methodologies, particularly particle filtering. == Education == Godsill obtained both undergraduate and Ph.D. degrees from the Department of Engineering at Cambridge University, whilst a member of Selwyn College. He obtained a first class degree in the Electrical and Information Sciences Tripos. The title of his 1993 Ph.D. thesis was "The Restoration of Degraded Audio Signals" and his Ph.D. supervisor was Peter Rayner, whom he shared with Michael Richard Lynch. == Career == Godsill has published over 250 articles in peer reviewed journals, along with the books Digital audio restoration: a statistical model based approach and Compressed sensing & sparse filtering. == Business interests == Godsill is currently a director of CEDAR Audio Ltd, a Cambridge-based company that applies Bayesian mathematics for purposes of noise reduction in audio data. In February 2005, the company received a Sci-Tech Academy Award (a 'Technical Oscar') for its services to the movie industry, and a stream of innovations appeared over the following years with corresponding recognition including induction into the Audio Technology Hall of Fame (2008), a Cinema Audio Society Award (2009). Godsill is also a director at Input Dynamics Ltd, a Cambridge-based company that applies Bayesian techniques to touch screen technology. Godsill is involved with the research effort at BMLL Technologies, a Cambridge spin-off working in the field of machine learning application in the financial sector.
DABUS
DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) is an artificial intelligence (AI) system created by Stephen Thaler. It reportedly conceived of two novel products — a food container constructed using fractal geometry, which enables rapid reheating, and a flashing beacon for attracting attention in an emergency. The filing of patent applications designating DABUS as inventor has led to decisions by patent offices and courts on whether a patent can be granted for an invention reportedly made by an AI system. == History in different jurisdictions == === Australia === On 17 September 2019, Thaler filed an application to patent a "Food container and devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention," naming DABUS as the inventor. On 21 September 2020, IP Australia found that section 15(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) is inconsistent with an artificial intelligence machine being treated as an inventor, and Thaler's application had lapsed. Thaler sought judicial review, and on 30 July 2021, the Federal Court set aside IP Australia's decision and ordered IP Australia to reconsider the application. On 13 April 2022, the Full Court of the Federal Court set aside that decision, holding that only a natural person can be an inventor for the purposes of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth), and that such an inventor must be identified for any person to be entitled to a grant of a patent. On 11 November 2022, Thaler was refused special leave to appeal to the High Court. === European Patent Office === On 17 October 2018 and 7 November 2018, Thaler filed two European patent applications with the European Patent Office. The first claimed invention was a "Food Container" and the second was "Devices and Methods for Attracting Enhanced Attention." On 27 January 2020, the EPO rejected the applications on the grounds that the application listed an AI system named DABUS, and not a human, as the inventor, based on Article 81 and Rule 19(1) of the European Patent Convention (EPC). On 21 December 2021, the Board of Appeal of the EPO dismissed Thaler's appeal from the EPO's primary decision. The Board of Appeal confirmed that "under the EPC the designated inventor has to be a person with legal capacity. This is not merely an assumption on which the EPC was drafted. It is the ordinary meaning of the term inventor." === United Kingdom === Similar applications were filed by Thaler to the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office on 17 October and 7 November 2018. The Office asked Thaler to file statements of inventorship and of right of grant to a patent (Patent Form 7) in respect of each invention within 16 months of the filing date. Thaler filed those forms naming DABUS as the inventor and explaining in some detail why he believed that machines should be regarded as inventors in the circumstances. His application was rejected on the grounds that: (1) naming a machine as inventor did not meet the requirements of the Patents Act 1977; and (2) the IPO was not satisfied as to the manner in which Thaler had acquired rights that would otherwise vest in the inventor. Thaler was not satisfied with the decision and asked for a hearing before an official known as the "hearing officer". By a decision dated 4 December 2019 the hearing officer rejected Thaler's appeal. Thaler appealed against the hearing officer's decision to the Patents Court (a specialist court within the Chancery Division of the High Court of England and Wales that determines patent disputes). On 21 September 2020, Mr Justice Marcus Smith upheld the decision of the hearing officer. On 21 September 2021, Thaler's further appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed by Arnold LJ and Laing LJ (Birss LJ dissenting). On 20 December 2023, the UK Supreme Court dismissed a further appeal by Thaler. In its judgment, the court held that an "inventor" under the Patents Act 1977 must be a natural person. === United States === The patent applications on the inventions were refused by the USPTO, which held that only natural persons can be named as inventors in a patent application. Thaler first fought this result by filing a complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act alleging that the decision was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law; unsupported by substantial evidence, and in excess of Defendants’ statutory authority." A month later on August 19, 2019, Thaler filed a petition with the USPTO as allowed in 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 stating that DABUS should be the inventor. The judge and Thaler agreed in this case that Thaler himself is unable to receive the patent on behalf of DABUS. In their August 5, 2022, Thaler decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that only a natural person could be an inventor, which means that the AI that invents any other type of invention is not addressed by the "who" mentioned in the legislation. === New Zealand === On January 31, 2022, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) decided that a patent application (776029) filed by Stephen Thaler was void, on the basis that no inventor was identified on the patent application. IPONZ determined that DABUS could not be "an actual devisor of the invention" as required by the Patents Act 2013, and that this must be a natural person as held by the previous patent offices above. The High Court of New Zealand confirmed the decision in 2023. === South Africa === On 24 June 2021, the South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) accepted Dr Thaler's Patent Cooperation Treaty, for a patent in respect of inventions generated by DABUS. In July 2021, the CIPC released a notice of issuance for the patent. It is the first patent granted for an AI invention. === Switzerland === On June 26, 2025, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court ruled that artificial intelligence systems such as DABUS cannot be listed as inventors in patent applications. The court upheld the existing practice of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI), which requires that only natural persons can be recognized as inventors under Swiss patent law. The case concerned a patent application, which sought to designate DABUS as the sole inventor of a food container designed with a fractal geometry to enhance heat distribution. The IPI had rejected the application, arguing that both the absence of a human inventor and the attribution of inventorship to an AI system were inadmissible. While the court dismissed Thaler's main request, it accepted a subsidiary request: if a human applicant recognizes and files a patent based on an AI-generated invention, that person may be considered the inventor. As a result, the application may proceed with Thaler listed as the inventor. The decision (B-2532/2024) can still be appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
Top 10 AI Avatar Generators Compared (2026)
In search of the best AI avatar generator? An AI avatar generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI avatar generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.