FactorDaily is an Indian digital media publication founded in 2016 by Pankaj Mishra and Jayadevan PK. Mishra was formerly an Editor at TechCrunch and the Economic Times. The digital publication was launched with an intent to produce stories on the impact of technology on life in India. == History == FactorDaily began publishing in May 2016, with daily reported stories on technology, culture and life in India. Prior to its launch, the company had raised $1 million in seed funding from Accel India, Blume Ventures, Girish Mathrubootham of Freshdesk, Vijay Shekhar Sharma of PayTm, and Jay Vijayan of Tekion. Josey Puliyenthuruthel John, formerly Managing Editor at Business Today and National Corporate Editor at Mint, later joined the company as a Consulting Editor. In January 2017, FactorDaily launched its first Podcast called The Outliers. The inaugural episode featured a conversation with Manish Sharma of Printo on his journey starting up. == Awards == The FactorDaily team won the Bengaluru Editors Lab 2017, a journalism hackathon organised by the Global Editors Network (GEN). The story titled "India has 3,800 psychiatrists for 1.2bn people. Can tech step in to manage mental health?" won the first prize in the online category of the fifth Schizophrenia Research Foundation’s (SCARF) ‘Media for Mental Health’ awards. The story titled 'The dark hand of tech that stokes sex trafficking in India', won the Stop Slavery media Awards by the Thomson Reuters Foundation for the year 2020.
Niki.ai
Niki was an artificial intelligence company headquartered in Bangalore, Karnataka. It was founded in May 2015 by IIT Kharagpur graduates Sachin Jaiswal, Keshav Prawasi, Shishir Modi, and Nitin Babel. The Niki android app was launched for a limited beta in June 2015, then released for public during YourStory's TechSparks 2015, and is a Tech30 company. The company raised an undisclosed amount in seed funding from Unilazer Ventures, a Mumbai-based VC firm founded by Ronnie Screwvala, in October 2015. This was followed by another seed funding round by Ratan Tata in May 2016. The company then raised US$2 million in Series A round of funding from SAP.iO, existing investors and some US and German-based investors, among others. Niki.ai shut down in October 2021 as per media reports. Website not working. == Product == The product is an artificial intelligence-powered chatbot which works as an intelligent personal assistant, named Niki. Leveraging natural language processing and machine learning, Niki presents a chat-based natural language user interface to the users where they can interact with Niki in their natural language. Niki understands how users chat in India, deciphers the words, in the context of product/services that they would like to purchase, and comes up with apt recommendations. Initially, it was only available on the Android platform as a mobile app. The company has expanded its operations to the Facebook Messenger and Apple iOS platforms. The company aims to soon be present on more messaging platforms like Slack and WhatsApp. The company currently provides 20+ services to over 2 million consumers, covering a wide spectrum ranging from utility services like mobile recharge, bill payments, travel services like cabs, buses, hotels and entertainment services like movies and events. Services such as flights and healthcare are also planned. == Partnerships == In September 2017, Infosys Finacle joined with Niki.ai to provide chat-based service to banking customers. In August 2017, Niki partnered with LazyPay to enable a 'buy now, pay later' feature for its users.
RE/flex
RE/flex (or RE-flex) is a computer program that generates lexical analyzers also known as "scanners" or "lexers". Lexical analysis is the process of converting an input character stream into a sequence of tokens, a task known as lexical tokenization. == Overview == Most notable lexer generators used in practice, including Flex, Ragel, and RE/flex are based on deterministic finite automata (DFA) for efficient pattern matching, despite the theoretical possibility of an exponential increase in DFA size. In practice, lexer specifications typically use deterministic regular expressions, which makes substantial DFA blowup uncommon. RE/flex translates a POSIX-compliant lexer specification directly into a DFA using standard construction techniques described in the compiler literature, extending the techniques to handle lazy matching and indentation detection applicable to specific programming language tokenization tasks. Like Flex, RE/flex generates efficient DFA-based scanners, but it shares no code with Flex and is implemented as a complete rewrite in C++. In addition to its native DFA-based engine, RE/flex can also be combined with external regular expression libraries that are not DFA-based, such as the C++ standard library regex engine, PCRE, and boost.regex. This is achieved by systematically rewriting the set of lexer patterns into a form suitable for tokenization with the selected external library. RE/flex performs this rewriting automatically using translation rules that are specific to each supported regular expression library. A lexer specification defines a set of regular expression patterns { p i : i = 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle \{p_{i}:i=1,\ldots ,n\}} corresponding to different token classes, such as identifiers, keywords, literals, and operators. These patterns can be combined into a single regular expression R = ( p 1 ) ∣ ( p 2 ) ∣ … ∣ ( p n ) {\displaystyle R=(p_{1})\mid (p_{2})\mid \ldots \mid (p_{n})} . When applied to an input string, a regular expression engine repeatedly matches R {\displaystyle R} , returning the index i of the matched subpattern ( p i ) {\displaystyle (p_{i})} , thereby decomposing the input into a sequence of tokens. Example use cases include: Compiler construction, such as the use of RE/flex in the Tiger Compiler project within the EPITA compiler construction curriculum Compiler-compiler systems, including its use in Ox, an attribute-grammar–based compiling system Pattern matching and search tools, such as grep-like utilities, including the use of RE/flex in ugrep
HOCR
hOCR is an open standard of data representation for formatted text obtained from optical character recognition (OCR). The definition encodes text, style, layout information, recognition confidence metrics and other information using Extensible Markup Language (XML) in the form of Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) or XHTML. == Software == The following OCR software can output the recognition result as hOCR file: OCRopus Tesseract Cuneiform ghostscript HebOCR gcv2hocr gImageReader == Example == The following example is an extract of an hOCR file: The recognized text is stored in normal text nodes of the HTML file. The distribution into separate lines and words is here given by the surrounding span tags. Moreover, the usual HTML entities are used, for example the p tag for a paragraph. Additional information is given in the properties such as: different layout elements such as "ocr_par", "ocr_line", "ocrx_word" geometric information for each element with a bounding box "bbox" language information "lang" some confidence values "x_wconf" == bbox == === General === The Layout of the Bounding Box Object or bbox Object is Grammar. property-name = "bbox" property-value = uint uint uint uint ==== Example ==== bbox 0 0 100 200 The bbox - short for "bounding box" - of an element is a rectangular box around this element, which is defined by the upper-left corner (x0, y0) and the lower-right corner (x1, y1). the values are with reference to the top-left corner of the document image and measured in pixels the order of the values are x0 y0 x1 y1 = "left top right bottom" ===== Usage ===== Use x_bboxes below for character bounding boxes. Do not use bbox unless the bounding box of the layout component is, in fact, rectangular, some non-rectangular layout components may have rectangular bounding boxes if the non-rectangularity is caused by floating elements around which text flows. The bounding box bbox of this line is shown in blue and it is span by the upper-left corner (10, 20) and the lower-right corner (160, 30). All coordinates are measured with reference to the top-left corner of the document image which border is drawn in black. == Searchable PDF files == The hOCR format is most commonly used in order to make searchable PDF files or as an extracted metadata of the PDF file. In order to create searchable PDF files we can use a scanned document image and a .hocr file of the particular image. We can use the following open source tools in order to achieve that. === hocr-tools === Source: hocr-tools is an open source library written in Python. It has a command-line utility attached in the scripts called hocr-pdf that enables us to convert standard hocr files to a searchable PDF file. It is also worth noting that the version for dealing with hocr files in RTL or non-Latin scripts like Arabic, we need to use the GitHub repository at the moment. hocr-pdf We can use the hocr-pdf utility using the following basic syntax. hocr-pdf—savefile final.pdf folder_images_and_hocr The folder_images_and_hocr must contain the respective .jpg and .hocr format files with their file extensions changed. ==== Known issues ==== Some of the known issues of hocr-pdf script in PyPI installation are the following. Not up to date with GitHub repository. hocr-pdf is broken on line 134 due to decodebytes() depreciated after Python 3.1 ==== Known fixes ==== Compile hocr-tools using latest GitHub repository. === hocr2pdf === hocr2pdf is another library that supports the conversion of hocr files. It is written in C++ and is cross-compatible with other libraries. It also has support for UTF-8 languages but that may require some additional debugging and browsing through some google conversation records to achieve that. According to Ubuntu Manpages,ExactImage is a fast C++ image processing library. Unlike many other library frameworks it allows operation in several color spaces and bit depths natively, resulting in low memory and computational requirements. hocr2pdf creates well layouted, searchable PDF files from hOCR (annotated HTML) input obtained from an OCR system. == hOCR to PDF attempts == In addition to the following discussed and stable libraries there have been many contributions to the hOCR format over the years with support from many of the early adopters of this format. You can get access to inlaying text on an Image with hOCR and converting that in a PDF file using Python 2 with this 12-year-old script as of 2021. This script can also be updated and made functional by converting that Python 2 Source code to Python 3 Supported Context. - HOCRConverter by jbrinley (Documentation) === HOCRConverter === The HOCRConverter is a script written in Python 2.x that can used in order to convert a hOCR file with a specified image file in order to convert it to a searchable PDF file. You can see the documentation using the link above. ==== Known issues ==== Has not been tested. Does not natively support Python 3.x
Evaluation of machine translation
Various methods for the evaluation for machine translation have been employed. This article focuses on the evaluation of the output of machine translation, rather than on performance or usability evaluation. == Round-trip translation == A typical way for lay people to assess machine translation quality is to translate from a source language to a target language and back to the source language with the same engine. Though intuitively this may seem like a good method of evaluation, it has been shown that round-trip translation is a "poor predictor of quality". The reason why it is such a poor predictor of quality is reasonably intuitive. A round-trip translation is not testing one system, but two systems: the language pair of the engine for translating into the target language, and the language pair translating back from the target language. Consider the following examples of round-trip translation performed from English to Italian and Portuguese from Somers (2005): In the first example, where the text is translated into Italian then back into English—the English text is significantly garbled, but the Italian is a serviceable translation. In the second example, the text translated back into English is perfect, but the Portuguese translation is meaningless; the program thought "tit" was a reference to a tit (bird), which was intended for a "tat", a word it did not understand. While round-trip translation may be useful to generate a "surplus of fun," the methodology is deficient for serious study of machine translation quality. == Human evaluation == This section covers two of the large scale evaluation studies that have had significant impact on the field—the ALPAC 1966 study and the ARPA study. === Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee (ALPAC) === One of the constituent parts of the ALPAC report was a study comparing different levels of human translation with machine translation output, using human subjects as judges. The human judges were specially trained for the purpose. The evaluation study compared an MT system translating from Russian into English with human translators, on two variables. The variables studied were "intelligibility" and "fidelity". Intelligibility was a measure of how "understandable" the sentence was, and was measured on a scale of 1–9. Fidelity was a measure of how much information the translated sentence retained compared to the original, and was measured on a scale of 0–9. Each point on the scale was associated with a textual description. For example, 3 on the intelligibility scale was described as "Generally unintelligible; it tends to read like nonsense but, with a considerable amount of reflection and study, one can at least hypothesize the idea intended by the sentence". Intelligibility was measured without reference to the original, while fidelity was measured indirectly. The translated sentence was presented, and after reading it and absorbing the content, the original sentence was presented. The judges were asked to rate the original sentence on informativeness. So, the more informative the original sentence, the lower the quality of the translation. The study showed that the variables were highly correlated when the human judgment was averaged per sentence. The variation among raters was small, but the researchers recommended that at the very least, three or four raters should be used. The evaluation methodology managed to separate translations by humans from translations by machines with ease. The study concluded that, "highly reliable assessments can be made of the quality of human and machine translations". === Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) === As part of the Human Language Technologies Program, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) created a methodology to evaluate machine translation systems, and continues to perform evaluations based on this methodology. The evaluation programme was instigated in 1991, and continues to this day. Details of the programme can be found in White et al. (1994) and White (1995). The evaluation programme involved testing several systems based on different theoretical approaches; statistical, rule-based and human-assisted. A number of methods for the evaluation of the output from these systems were tested in 1992 and the most recent suitable methods were selected for inclusion in the programmes for subsequent years. The methods were; comprehension evaluation, quality panel evaluation, and evaluation based on adequacy and fluency. Comprehension evaluation aimed to directly compare systems based on the results from multiple choice comprehension tests, as in Church et al. (1993). The texts chosen were a set of articles in English on the subject of financial news. These articles were translated by professional translators into a series of language pairs, and then translated back into English using the machine translation systems. It was decided that this was not adequate for a standalone method of comparing systems and as such abandoned due to issues with the modification of meaning in the process of translating from English. The idea of quality panel evaluation was to submit translations to a panel of expert native English speakers who were professional translators and get them to evaluate them. The evaluations were done on the basis of a metric, modelled on a standard US government metric used to rate human translations. This was good from the point of view that the metric was "externally motivated", since it was not specifically developed for machine translation. However, the quality panel evaluation was very difficult to set up logistically, as it necessitated having a number of experts together in one place for a week or more, and furthermore for them to reach consensus. This method was also abandoned. Along with a modified form of the comprehension evaluation (re-styled as informativeness evaluation), the most popular method was to obtain ratings from monolingual judges for segments of a document. The judges were presented with a segment, and asked to rate it for two variables, adequacy and fluency. Adequacy is a rating of how much information is transferred between the original and the translation, and fluency is a rating of how good the English is. This technique was found to cover the relevant parts of the quality panel evaluation, while at the same time being easier to deploy, as it didn't require expert judgment. Measuring systems based on adequacy and fluency, along with informativeness is now the standard methodology for the ARPA evaluation program. == Automatic evaluation == In the context of this article, a metric is a measurement. A metric that evaluates machine translation output represents the quality of the output. The quality of a translation is inherently subjective, there is no objective or quantifiable "good." Therefore, any metric must assign quality scores so they correlate with the human judgment of quality. That is, a metric should score highly translations that humans score highly, and give low scores to those humans give low scores. Human judgment is the benchmark for assessing automatic metrics, as humans are the end-users of any translation output. The measure of evaluation for metrics is correlation with human judgment. This is generally done at two levels, at the sentence level, where scores are calculated by the metric for a set of translated sentences, and then correlated against human judgment for the same sentences. And at the corpus level, where scores over the sentences are aggregated for both human judgments and metric judgments, and these aggregate scores are then correlated. Figures for correlation at the sentence level are rarely reported, although Banerjee et al. (2005) do give correlation figures that show that, at least for their metric, sentence-level correlation is substantially worse than corpus level correlation. While not widely reported, it has been noted that the genre, or domain, of a text has an effect on the correlation obtained when using metrics. Coughlin (2003) reports that comparing the candidate text against a single reference translation does not adversely affect the correlation of metrics when working in a restricted domain text. Even if a metric correlates well with human judgment in one study on one corpus, this successful correlation may not carry over to another corpus. Good metric performance, across text types or domains, is important for the reusability of the metric. A metric that only works for text in a specific domain is useful, but less useful than one that works across many domains—because creating a new metric for every new evaluation or domain is undesirable. Another important factor in the usefulness of an evaluation metric is to have a good correlation, even when working with small amounts of data, that is candidate sentences and reference translations. Turian et al. (2003) point out that, "Any MT evaluation measure is less reliable on shorter translations", and
Stixel
In computer vision, a stixel (portmanteau of "stick" and "pixel") is a superpixel representation of depth information in an image, in the form of a vertical stick that approximates the closest obstacles within a certain vertical slice of the scene. Introduced in 2009, stixels have applications in robotic navigation and advanced driver-assistance systems, where they can be used to define a representation of robotic environments and traffic scenes with a medium level of abstraction. == Definition == One of the problems of scene understanding in computer vision is to determine horizontal freespace around the camera, where the agent can move, and the vertical obstacles delimiting it. An image can be paired with depth information (produced e.g. from stereo disparity, lidar, or monocular depth estimation), allowing a dense tridimensional reconstruction of the observed scene. One drawback of dense reconstruction is the large amount of data involved, since each pixel in the image is mapped to an element of a point cloud. Vision problems characterised by planar freespace delimited by mostly vertical obstacles, such as traffic scenes or robotic navigation, can benefit from a condensed representation that allows to save memory and processing time. Stixels are thin vertical rectangles representing a slice of a vertical surface belonging to the closest obstacle in the observed scene. They allow to dramatically reduce the amount of information needed to represent a scene in such problems. A stixel is characterised by three parameters: vertical coordinate of the bottom, height of the stick, and depth. Stixels have fixed width, with each stixel spanning over a certain number of image columns, allowing downsampling of the horizontal image resolution. In the original formulation, each column of the image would contain at most one stixel, and later extensions were developed to allow multiple stixels on each column, allowing to represent multiple objects at different distances. == Stixel estimation == The input to stixel estimation is a dense depth map, that can be computed from stereo disparity or other means. The original approach computes an occupancy grid that can be segmented to estimate the freespace, with dynamic programming providing an efficient method to find an optimal segmentation. Alternative approaches can be used instead of occupancy grid mapping, such as manifold-based methods. The freespace boundary provides the base points of the obstacles at closest longitudinal distance, however multiple objects at different distances might appear in each column of the image. To fully define the obstacles, their height should be estimated, and this is accomplished by segmenting the depth of the object from the depth of the background. A membership function over the pixels can be defined based on the depth value, where the membership represents the confidence of a pixel belonging to the closest vertical obstacle or to the background, and a cut separating the obstacles from the background can again be computed effectively with dynamic programming. Once both the freespace and the obstacle height are known, the stixels can be estimated by fusing the information over the columns spanned by each stixel, and finally a refined depth of the stixel can be estimated via model fitting over the depth of the pixels covered by the stixel, possibly paired with confidence information (e.g. disparity confidence produced by methods such as semi-global matching).
Is an AI Virtual Assistant Worth It in 2026?
Shopping for the best AI virtual assistant? An AI virtual assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI virtual assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.