AI Coding Tools

Explore the best AI Coding Tools — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step how-to guides, curated by Aizhi.

Multi-model database

In the field of database design, a multi-model database is a database management system designed to support multiple data models against a single, integrated backend. In contrast, most database management systems are organized around a single data model that determines how data can be organized, stored, and manipulated. Document, graph, relational, and key–value models are examples of data models that may be supported by a multi-model database. == Background == The relational data model became popular after its publication by Edgar F. Codd in 1970. Due to increasing requirements for horizontal scalability and fault tolerance, NoSQL databases became prominent after 2009. NoSQL databases use a variety of data models, with document, graph, and key–value models being popular. A multi-model database is a database that can store, index and query data in more than one model. For some time, databases have primarily supported only one model, such as: relational database, document-oriented database, graph database or triplestore. A database that combines many of these is multi-model. This should not be confused with multimodal database systems such as Pixeltable or ApertureDB, which focus on unified management of different media types (images, video, audio, text) rather than different data models. For some time, it was all but forgotten (or considered irrelevant) that there were any other database models besides relational. The relational model and notion of third normal form were the default standard for all data storage. However, prior to the dominance of relational data modeling, from about 1980 to 2005, the hierarchical database model was commonly used. Since 2000 or 2010, many NoSQL models that are non-relational, including documents, triples, key–value stores and graphs are popular. Arguably, geospatial data, temporal data, and text data are also separate models, though indexed, queryable text data is generally termed a "search engine" rather than a database. The first time the word "multi-model" has been associated to the databases was on May 30, 2012 in Cologne, Germany, during the Luca Garulli's key note "NoSQL Adoption – What’s the Next Step?". Luca Garulli envisioned the evolution of the 1st generation NoSQL products into new products with more features able to be used by multiple use cases. The idea of multi-model databases can be traced back to Object–Relational Data Management Systems (ORDBMS) in the early 1990s and in a more broader scope even to federated and integrated DBMSs in the early 1980s. An ORDBMS system manages different types of data such as relational, object, text and spatial by plugging domain specific data types, functions and index implementations into the DBMS kernels. A multi-model database is most directly a response to the "polyglot persistence" approach of knitting together multiple database products, each handing a different model, to achieve a multi-model capability as described by Martin Fowler. This strategy has two major disadvantages: it leads to a significant increase in operational complexity, and there is no support for maintaining data consistency across the separate data stores, so multi-model databases have begun to fill in this gap. Multi-model databases are intended to offer the data modeling advantages of polyglot persistence, without its disadvantages. Operational complexity, in particular, is reduced through the use of a single data store. == Benchmarking multi-model databases == As more and more platforms are proposed to deal with multi-model data, there are a few works on benchmarking multi-model databases. For instance, Pluciennik, Oliveira, and UniBench reviewed existing multi-model databases and made an evaluation effort towards comparing multi-model databases and other SQL and NoSQL databases respectively. They pointed out that the advantages of multi-model databases over single-model databases are as follows : == Architecture == The main difference between the available multi-model databases is related to their architectures. Multi-model databases can support different models either within the engine or via different layers on top of the engine. Some products may provide an engine which supports documents and graphs while others provide layers on top of a key-key store. With a layered architecture, each data model is provided via its own component. == User-defined data models == In addition to offering multiple data models in a single data store, some databases allow developers to easily define custom data models. This capability is enabled by ACID transactions with high performance and scalability. In order for a custom data model to support concurrent updates, the database must be able to synchronize updates across multiple keys. ACID transactions, if they are sufficiently performant, allow such synchronization. JSON documents, graphs, and relational tables can all be implemented in a manner that inherits the horizontal scalability and fault-tolerance of the underlying data store. == Theoretical Foundation for Multi-Model Databases == The traditional theory of relations is not enough to accurately describe multi-model database systems. Recent research is focused on developing a new theoretical foundation for these systems. Category theory can provide a unified, rigorous language for modeling, integrating, and transforming different data models. By representing multi-model data as sets and their relationships as functions or relations within the Set category, we can create a formal framework to describe, manipulate, and understand various data models and how they interact.
Read more →
Backend as a service

Backend as a service (BaaS), sometimes also referred to as mobile backend as a service (MBaaS), is a service for providing web app and mobile app developers with a way to easily build a backend to their frontend applications. Features available include user management, push notifications, and integration with social networking services. These services are provided via the use of custom software development kits (SDKs) and application programming interfaces (APIs). BaaS is a relatively recent development in cloud computing, with most BaaS startups dating from 2011 or later. Some of the most popular service providers are AWS Amplify and Firebase. == Purpose == Web and mobile apps require a similar set of features on the backend, including notification service, integration with social networks, and cloud storage. Each of these services has its own API that must be individually incorporated into an app, a process that can be time-consuming and complicated for app developers. BaaS providers form a bridge between the frontend of an application and various cloud-based backends via a unified API and SDK. Providing a consistent way to manage backend data means that developers do not need to redevelop their own backend for each of the services that their apps need to access, potentially saving both time and money. Although similar to other cloud-computing business models, such as serverless computing, software as a service (SaaS), infrastructure as a service (IaaS), and platform as a service (PaaS), BaaS is distinct from these other services in that it specifically addresses the cloud-computing needs of web and mobile app developers by providing a unified means of connecting their apps to cloud services. == Features == BaaS providers offer different set of features and backend tools. Some of the most common features include: Database management. Most BaaS solutions provide SQL and/or NoSQL database management services for applications. Developers can store their app data without deploying and managing databases themselves. BaaS usually provides client SDKs, REST and GraphQL APIs for the frontend to interact with databases. File storage. BaaS providers often offer storage solutions for media files, user uploads, and other binary data. Applications can upload, download, and delete files through provided SDKs and APIs. Authentication and authorization. Some BaaS offer authentication and authorization services that allow developers to easily manage app users. This includes user sign-up, login, password reset, social media login integration through OAuth, user group and permission management etc. Notification service. Some BaaS providers such as Firebase and AWS Amplify have notification services that can send custom emails to users and push native notifications on mobile platforms. This is especially useful for applications that need to send messages, alerts, and reminders. Cloud functions. Some BaaS allow developers to deploy and run serverless functions. The functions are usually stateless and can be triggered by various ways including HTTP requests, SDK invocation, background server events, and cloud scheduled executions. Different providers offer runtime support for different languages, some of the popular languages are JavaScript/TypeScript (Node.js, Deno), Python, Java/Kotlin. Cloud functions extend the potential and flexibility of BaaS by allowing developers to write custom functionalities for their apps, working in a way similar to a traditional REST API backend framework. Usage analytics. Analytics data about application usage is often included in BaaS. This allows developers to monitor user behaviors and make decisions correspondingly in marketing strategies and performance optimizations. UI design. Some BaaS providers, such as AWS Amplify and Backendless, offer user interface designing tools that help developers design the frontend UI of web and mobile apps. While this may be useful for small teams and individual developers, UI design assistance may not be conventional in BaaS as it goes beyond the scope of backend infrastructure. Real-Time. Real-time features in a BaaS platform ensure that data updates and synchronizations occur instantly across all clients, making changes immediately visible to users. This is crucial for applications like live chat and collaborative tools, using technologies like WebSockets to maintain continuous server-client connections. == Service providers == BaaS providers have a broad focus, providing SDKs and APIs that work for app development on multiple platforms with different technology stacks, such as JavaScript (for Web apps), Flutter, Java/Kotlin (for Android apps), Swift/Objective-C (for iOS/MacOS/WatchOS/TvOS apps), .NET (for Windows) and others. BaaS providers also come in different types, suiting developers of different needs. === Cloud-based BaaS === Most BaaS providers host backend platforms on their cloud servers. They also manage the infrastructure, security, and scalability of the platforms. Developers can access the backend services via a web interface or the provided APIs. Some examples of cloud-based BaaS include Firebase (hosted on Google Cloud Platform), AWS Amplify (hosted on Amazon Web Services), and Microsoft Azure Mobile Apps (hosted on Microsoft Azure). === Self-hosted BaaS === Self-hosted BaaS allow developers to host backend on their own servers, providing more flexibility and potential to customization compared to cloud-based BaaS, which often is more difficult to migrate from. However, developers are also in charge of managing the infrastructure, security, and scalability of their servers. === Mobile BaaS === Mobile backend as a service (MBaaS) is a type of BaaS specifically for applications deployed in mobile systems. While some references use MBaaS interchangeably for BaaS, BaaS can have a wider variety of support such as for web apps and desktop apps. == Business model == BaaS providers generate revenue from their services in various ways, often using a freemium model. Under this model, a client receives a certain number of free active users or API calls per month, and pays a fee for each user or call over this limit. Alternatively, clients can pay a set fee for a package which allows for a greater number of calls or active users per month. There are also flat fee plans that make the pricing more predictable. Some of the providers offer the unlimited API calls inside their free plan offerings. Another business model that has been used by a lot of BaaS providers is PAYG (pay as you go), which has a flexible cost based on developers' usage of database, storage, bandwidth, function calls, user numbers etc.
Read more →
Live Transcribe

Live Transcribe is a mobile app for real-time captioning, developed by Google for the Android operating system. Development on the application began in partnership with Gallaudet University. It was publicly released as a free beta for Android 5.0+ on the Google Play Store on February 4, 2019. As of early 2023 it had been downloaded over 500 million times. == Development == Researchers Dimitri Kanevsky, Sagar Savla and Chet Gnegy at Google developed the app in collaboration with researchers at Gallaudet University, an American university for the education of the deaf and hard of hearing. The app uses machine learning to generate captions, similar to YouTube's auto-generated captions. In August 2019, Google made Live Transcribe an open-source project. == Features == The app uses speech recognition to generate live captions in over 80 languages with varying accuracy. The app, which requires connection to the Internet to function, is available to download on the Google Play Store. A later update to the app displayed information on sounds such as clapping, laughter, music, applause, and whistling. In May 2020, the app started supporting transcription in Albanian, Burmese, Estonian, Macedonian, Mongolian, Punjabi, and Uzbek, supporting 70 languages. In March 2022, the app was updated with support to transcribe offline, without Internet connection, so long as the appropriate language pack has been installed. The offline mode is only available for devices with 6GB of RAM and certain Google Pixel devices.
Read more →
Local ternary patterns

Local ternary patterns (LTP) are an extension of local binary patterns (LBP). Unlike LBP, it does not threshold the pixels into 0 and 1, rather it uses a threshold constant to threshold pixels into three values. Considering k as the threshold constant, c as the value of the center pixel, a neighboring pixel p, the result of threshold is: { 1 , if p > c + k 0 , if p > c − k and p < c + k − 1 if p < c − k {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if }}p>c+k\\0,&{\text{if }}p>c-k{\text{ and }}p Read more →
Comparison of raster graphics editors

Raster graphics editors can be compared by many variables, including availability. == List == == General information == Basic general information about the editor: creator, company, license, etc. == Operating system support == The operating systems on which the editors can run natively, that is, without emulation, virtual machines or compatibility layers. In other words, the software must be specifically coded for the operation system; for example, Adobe Photoshop for Windows running on Linux with Wine does not fit. == Features == == Color spaces == == File support ==
Read more →
Vicarious (company)

Vicarious was an artificial intelligence company based in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. They use the theorized computational principles of the brain to attempt to build software that can think and learn like a human. Vicarious describes its technology as "a turnkey robotics solution integrator using artificial intelligence to automate tasks too complex and versatile for traditional automations". Alphabet Inc acquired the company in 2022 for an undisclosed amount. == Founders == The company was founded in 2010 by D. Scott Phoenix and Dileep George. Before co-founding Vicarious, Phoenix was Entrepreneur in Residence at Founders Fund and CEO of Frogmetrics, a touchscreen analytics company he co-founded through the Y Combinator incubator program. Previously, George was Chief Technology Officer at Numenta, a company he co-founded with Jeff Hawkins and Donna Dubinsky while completing his PhD at Stanford University. == Funding == The company launched in February 2011 with funding from Founders Fund, Dustin Moskovitz, Adam D’Angelo (former Facebook CTO and co-founder of Quora), Felicis Ventures, and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale. In August 2012, in its Series A round of funding, it raised an additional $15 million. The round was led by Good Ventures; Founders Fund, Open Field Capital and Zarco Investment Group also participated. The company received $40 million in its Series B round of funding. The round was led by individuals including Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and others. An additional undisclosed amount was later contributed by Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos, Yahoo! co-founder Jerry Yang, Skype co-founder Janus Friis and Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff. == Recursive Cortical Network == Vicarious is developing machine learning software based on the computational principles of the human brain. One such software is a vision system known as the Recursive Cortical Network (RCN), it is a generative graphical visual perception system that interprets the contents of photographs and videos in a manner similar to humans. The system is powered by a balanced approach that takes sensory data, mathematics, and biological plausibility into consideration. On October 22, 2013, beating CAPTCHA, Vicarious announced its model was reliably able to solve modern CAPTCHAs, with character recognition rates of 90% or better when trained on one style. However, Luis von Ahn, a pioneer of early CAPTCHA and founder of reCAPTCHA, expressed skepticism, stating: "It's hard for me to be impressed since I see these every few months." He pointed out that 50 similar claims to that of Vicarious had been made since 2003. Vicarious later published their findings in peer-reviewed journal Science. Vicarious has indicated that its AI was not specifically designed to complete CAPTCHAs and its success at the task is a product of its advanced vision system. Because Vicarious's algorithms are based on insights from the human brain, it is also able to recognize photographs, videos, and other visual data.
Read more →
Color histogram

In image processing and photography, a color histogram is a representation of the distribution of colors in an image. For digital images, a color histogram represents the number of pixels that have colors in each of a fixed list of color ranges that span the image's color space (the set of all possible colors). A color histogram can be built for any kind of color space, although the term is more often used for three-dimensional spaces such as RGB or HSV. For monochromatic images, the term intensity histogram may be used instead. For multi-spectral images, where each pixel is represented by an arbitrary number of measurements (for example, beyond the three measurements in RGB), a color histogram is N-dimensional, with N being the number of measurements taken. Each measurement has its own wavelength range of the light spectrum, some of which may be outside the visible spectrum. If the set of possible color values is sufficiently small, each of those colors may be placed on a range by itself; then the histogram is merely the count of pixels that have each possible color. Most often, the space is divided into an appropriate number of ranges, often arranged as a regular grid, each containing many similar color values. A color histogram may also be represented and displayed as a smooth function defined over the color space that approximates the pixel counts. Like other kinds of histograms, a color histogram is a statistic that can be viewed as an approximation of an underlying continuous distribution of color values. == Overview == Color histograms are flexible constructs that can be built from images in various color spaces, whether RGB, rg chromaticity or any other color space of any dimension. A histogram of an image is produced first by discretization of the colors in the image into a number of bins, and counting the number of image pixels in each bin. For example, a red–blue chromaticity histogram can be formed by first normalizing color pixel values by dividing RGB values by R+G+B, then quantizing the normalized R and B coordinates into N bins each. A two-dimensional histogram of red–blue chromaticity divided into four bins (N=4) may yield a histogram similar to this table: A histogram can be N-dimensional. Although harder to display, a three-dimensional color histogram for the above example could be thought of as four separate red–blue histograms, where each of the four histograms contains the red–blue values for a bin of green (0–63, 64–127, 128–191, and 192–255). The histogram provides a compact summarization of the distribution of data in an image. A color histogram of an image is relatively invariant with translation and rotation about the viewing axis, and varies only slowly with the angle of view. By comparing histogram signatures of two images and matching the color content of one image with the other, a color histogram is particularly well suited for the problem of recognizing an object of unknown position and rotation within a scene. Importantly, translation of an RGB image into the illumination invariant rg-chromaticity space allows the histogram to operate well in varying light levels. 1. What is a histogram? A histogram is a graphical representation of the number of pixels in an image. In a more simple way to explain, a histogram is a bar graph, whose X-axis represents the tonal scale (black at the left and white at the right), and Y-axis represents the number of pixels in an image in a certain area of the tonal scale. For example, the graph of a luminance histogram shows the number of pixels for each brightness level (from black to white), and when there are more pixels, the peak at the certain luminance level is higher. 2. What is a color histogram? A color histogram of an image represents the distribution of the composition of colors in the image. It shows different types of colors appeared and the number of pixels in each type of the colors appeared. The relation between a color histogram and a luminance histogram is that a color histogram can be also expressed as “three luminance histograms”, each of which shows the brightness distribution of each individual red/green/blue color channel. == Characteristics of a color histogram == A color histogram focuses only on the proportion of the number of different types of colors, regardless of the spatial location of the colors. The values of a color histogram are from statistics. They show the statistical distribution of colors and the essential tone of an image. In general, as the color distributions of the foreground and background in an image are different, there might be a bimodal distribution in the histogram. For the luminance histogram alone, there is no perfect histogram and in general, the histogram can tell whether it is over-exposure or not, but there are times when you might think the image is over exposed by viewing the histogram; however, in reality it is not. == Principles of the formation of a color histogram == The formation of a color histogram is rather simple. From the definition above, we can simply count the number of pixels for each 256 scales in each of the 3 RGB channel, and plot them on 3 individual bar graphs. In general, a color histogram is based on a certain color space, such as RGB or HSV. When we compute the pixels of different colors in an image, if the color space is large, then we can first divide the color space into certain numbers of small intervals. Each of the intervals is called a bin. This process is called color quantization. Then, by counting the number of pixels in each of the bins, we get a color histogram of the image. The concrete steps of the principles can be viewed in Example 1. == Examples == === Example 1 === Given the following image of a cat (an original version and a version that has been reduced to 256 colors for easy histogram purposes), the following data represents a color histogram in the RGB color space, using four bins. Bin 0 corresponds to intensities 0–63 Bin 1 is 64–127 Bin 2 is 128–191 and Bin 3 is 192–255. === Example 2 === Application in camera: Nowadays, some cameras have the ability to show the 3 color histograms when we take photos. We can examine clips (spikes on either the black or white side of the scale) in each of the 3 RGB color histograms. If we find one or more clipping on a channel of the 3 RGB channels, then this would result in a loss of detail for that color. To illustrate this, consider this example: We know that each of the three R, G, B channels has a range of values from 0 to 255 (8 bit). So consider a photo that has a luminance range of 0–255. Assume the photo we take is made of 4 blocks that are adjacent to each other and we set the luminance scale for each of the 4 blocks of original photo to be 10, 100, 205, 245. Thus, the image looks like the topmost figure on the right. Then, we overexpose the photo a little, say, the luminance scale of each block is increased by 10. Thus, the luminance scale for each of the 4 blocks of new photo is 20, 110, 215, 255. Then, the image looks like the second figure on the right. There is not much difference between both figures, all we can see is that the whole image becomes brighter (the contrast for each of the blocks remain the same). Now, we overexpose the original photo again, this time the luminance scale of each block is increased by 50. Thus, the luminance scale for each of the 4 blocks of the new photo is 60, 150, 255, 255. The new image now looks like the third figure on the right. Note that the scale for the last block is 255 instead of 295, for 255 is the top scale and thus the last block has clipped. When this happens, we lose the contrast of the last 2 blocks, and thus we cannot recover the image no matter how we adjust it. To conclude, when taking photos with a camera that displays histograms, always keep the brightest tone in the image below the largest scale 255 on the histogram in order to avoid losing details. == Drawbacks and other approaches == The main drawback of histograms for classification is that the representation is dependent on the color of the object being studied, ignoring its shape and texture. Color histograms can potentially be identical for two images with different object content which happens to share color information. Conversely, without spatial or shape information, similar objects of different color may be indistinguishable based solely on color histogram comparisons. There is no way to distinguish a red and white cup from a red and white plate. Put it another way: histogram-based algorithms have no concept of a generic 'cup', and a model of a red and white cup is no use when given an otherwise identical blue and white cup. Another problem is that color histograms have high sensitivity to noisy interference such as lighting intensity changes and quantization errors. High dimensionality (bins) color histograms are also another issue. Some color histogram feature spaces often occupy more than one hundred di
Read more →
BERT (language model)

Bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) is a language model introduced in October 2018 by researchers at Google. It learns to represent text as a sequence of vectors using self-supervised learning. It uses the encoder-only transformer architecture. BERT dramatically improved the state of the art for large language models. As of 2020, BERT is a ubiquitous baseline in natural language processing (NLP) experiments. BERT is trained by masked token prediction and next sentence prediction. With this training, BERT learns contextual, latent representations of tokens in their context, similar to ELMo and GPT-2. It found applications for many natural language processing tasks, such as coreference resolution and polysemy resolution. It improved on ELMo and spawned the study of "BERTology", which attempts to interpret what is learned by BERT. BERT was originally implemented in the English language at two model sizes, BERTBASE (110 million parameters) and BERTLARGE (340 million parameters). Both were trained on the Toronto BookCorpus (800M words) and English Wikipedia (2,500M words). The weights were released on GitHub. On March 11, 2020, 24 smaller models were released, the smallest being BERTTINY with just 4 million parameters. == Architecture == BERT is an "encoder-only" transformer architecture. At a high level, BERT consists of 4 modules: Tokenizer: This module converts a piece of English text into a sequence of integers ("tokens"). Embedding: This module converts the sequence of tokens into an array of real-valued vectors representing the tokens. It represents the conversion of discrete token types into a lower-dimensional Euclidean space. Encoder: a stack of Transformer blocks with self-attention, but without causal masking. Task head: This module converts the final representation vectors into one-shot encoded tokens again by producing a predicted probability distribution over the token types. It can be viewed as a simple decoder, decoding the latent representation into token types, or as an "un-embedding layer". The task head is necessary for pre-training, but it is often unnecessary for so-called "downstream tasks," such as question answering or sentiment classification. Instead, one removes the task head and replaces it with a newly initialized module suited for the task, and finetune the new module. The latent vector representation of the model is directly fed into this new module, allowing for sample-efficient transfer learning. === Embedding === This section describes the embedding used by BERTBASE. The other one, BERTLARGE, is similar, just larger. The tokenizer of BERT is WordPiece, which is a sub-word strategy like byte-pair encoding. Its vocabulary size is 30,000, and any token not appearing in its vocabulary is replaced by [UNK] ("unknown"). The first layer is the embedding layer, which contains three components: token type embeddings, position embeddings, and segment type embeddings. Token type: The token type is a standard embedding layer, translating a one-hot vector into a dense vector based on its token type. Position: The position embeddings are based on a token's position in the sequence. BERT uses absolute position embeddings, where each position in a sequence is mapped to a real-valued vector. Each dimension of the vector consists of a sinusoidal function that takes the position in the sequence as input. Segment type: Using a vocabulary of just 0 or 1, this embedding layer produces a dense vector based on whether the token belongs to the first or second text segment in that input. In other words, type-1 tokens are all tokens that appear after the [SEP] special token. All prior tokens are type-0. The three embedding vectors are added together representing the initial token representation as a function of these three pieces of information. After embedding, the vector representation is normalized using a LayerNorm operation, outputting a 768-dimensional vector for each input token. After this, the representation vectors are passed forward through 12 Transformer encoder blocks, and are decoded back to 30,000-dimensional vocabulary space using a basic affine transformation layer. === Architectural family === The encoder stack of BERT has 2 free parameters: L {\displaystyle L} , the number of layers, and H {\displaystyle H} , the hidden size. There are always H / 64 {\displaystyle H/64} self-attention heads, and the feed-forward/filter size is always 4 H {\displaystyle 4H} . By varying these two numbers, one obtains an entire family of BERT models. For BERT: the feed-forward size and filter size are synonymous. Both of them denote the number of dimensions in the middle layer of the feed-forward network. the hidden size and embedding size are synonymous. Both of them denote the number of real numbers used to represent a token. The notation for encoder stack is written as L/H. For example, BERTBASE is written as 12L/768H, BERTLARGE as 24L/1024H, and BERTTINY as 2L/128H. == Training == === Pre-training === BERT was pre-trained simultaneously on two tasks: Masked language modeling (MLM): In this task, BERT ingests a sequence of words, where one word may be randomly changed ("masked"), and BERT tries to predict the original words that had been changed. For example, in the sentence "The cat sat on the [MASK]," BERT would need to predict "mat." This helps BERT learn bidirectional context, meaning it understands the relationships between words not just from left to right or right to left but from both directions at the same time. Next sentence prediction (NSP): In this task, BERT is trained to predict whether one sentence logically follows another. For example, given two sentences, "The cat sat on the mat" and "It was a sunny day", BERT has to decide if the second sentence is a valid continuation of the first one. This helps BERT understand relationships between sentences, which is important for tasks like question answering or document classification. ==== Masked language modeling ==== In masked language modeling, 15% of tokens would be randomly selected for masked-prediction task, and the training objective was to predict the masked token given its context. In more detail, the selected token is: replaced with a [MASK] token with probability 80%, replaced with a random word token with probability 10%, not replaced with probability 10%. The reason not all selected tokens are masked is to avoid the dataset shift problem. The dataset shift problem arises when the distribution of inputs seen during training differs significantly from the distribution encountered during inference. A trained BERT model might be applied to word representation (like Word2Vec), where it would be run over sentences not containing any [MASK] tokens. It is later found that more diverse training objectives are generally better. As an illustrative example, consider the sentence "my dog is cute". It would first be divided into tokens like "my1 dog2 is3 cute4". Then a random token in the sentence would be picked. Let it be the 4th one "cute4". Next, there would be three possibilities: with probability 80%, the chosen token is masked, resulting in "my1 dog2 is3 [MASK]4"; with probability 10%, the chosen token is replaced by a uniformly sampled random token, such as "happy", resulting in "my1 dog2 is3 happy4"; with probability 10%, nothing is done, resulting in "my1 dog2 is3 cute4". After processing the input text, the model's 4th output vector is passed to its decoder layer, which outputs a probability distribution over its 30,000-dimensional vocabulary space. ==== Next sentence prediction ==== Given two sentences, the model predicts if they appear sequentially in the training corpus, outputting either [IsNext] or [NotNext]. During training, the algorithm sometimes samples two sentences from a single continuous span in the training corpus, while at other times, it samples two sentences from two discontinuous spans. The first sentence starts with a special token, [CLS] (for "classify"). The two sentences are separated by another special token, [SEP] (for "separate"). After processing the two sentences, the final vector for the [CLS] token is passed to a linear layer for binary classification into [IsNext] and [NotNext]. For example: Given "[CLS] my dog is cute [SEP] he likes playing [SEP]", the model should predict [IsNext]. Given "[CLS] my dog is cute [SEP] how do magnets work [SEP]", the model should predict [NotNext]. === Fine-tuning === BERT is meant as a general pretrained model for various applications in natural language processing. That is, after pre-training, BERT can be fine-tuned with fewer resources on smaller datasets to optimize its performance on specific tasks such as natural language inference and text classification, and sequence-to-sequence-based language generation tasks such as question answering and conversational response generation. The original BERT paper published results demonstrating that a small amount of fine
Read more →
System appreciation

System appreciation is an activity often included in the maintenance phase of software engineering projects. Key deliverables from this phase include documentation that describes what the system does in terms of its functional features, and how it achieves those features in terms of its architecture and design. Software architecture recovery is often the first step within System appreciation.
Read more →
Lesk algorithm

The Lesk algorithm is a classical algorithm for word sense disambiguation introduced by Michael E. Lesk in 1986. It operates on the premise that words within a given context are likely to share a common meaning. This algorithm compares the dictionary definitions of an ambiguous word with the words in its surrounding context to determine the most appropriate sense. Variations, such as the Simplified Lesk algorithm, have demonstrated improved precision and efficiency. However, the Lesk algorithm has faced criticism for its sensitivity to definition wording and its reliance on brief glosses. Researchers have sought to enhance its accuracy by incorporating additional resources like thesauruses and syntactic models. == Overview == The Lesk algorithm is based on the assumption that words in a given "neighborhood" (section of text) will tend to share a common topic. A simplified version of the Lesk algorithm is to compare the dictionary definition of an ambiguous word with the terms contained in its neighborhood. Versions have been adapted to use WordNet. An implementation might look like this: for every sense of the word being disambiguated one should count the number of words that are in both the neighborhood of that word and in the dictionary definition of that sense the sense that is to be chosen is the sense that has the largest number of this count. A frequently used example illustrating this algorithm is for the context "pine cone". The following dictionary definitions are used: PINE 1. kinds of evergreen tree with needle-shaped leaves 2. waste away through sorrow or illness CONE 1. solid body which narrows to a point 2. something of this shape whether solid or hollow 3. fruit of certain evergreen trees As can be seen, the best intersection is Pine #1 ⋂ Cone #3 = 2. == Simplified Lesk algorithm == In Simplified Lesk algorithm, the correct meaning of each word in a given context is determined individually by locating the sense that overlaps the most between its dictionary definition and the given context. Rather than simultaneously determining the meanings of all words in a given context, this approach tackles each word individually, independent of the meaning of the other words occurring in the same context. "A comparative evaluation performed by Vasilescu et al. (2004) has shown that the simplified Lesk algorithm can significantly outperform the original definition of the algorithm, both in terms of precision and efficiency. By evaluating the disambiguation algorithms on the Senseval-2 English all words data, they measure a 58% precision using the simplified Lesk algorithm compared to the only 42% under the original algorithm. Note: Vasilescu et al. implementation considers a back-off strategy for words not covered by the algorithm, consisting of the most frequent sense defined in WordNet. This means that words for which all their possible meanings lead to zero overlap with current context or with other word definitions are by default assigned sense number one in WordNet." Simplified LESK Algorithm with smart default word sense (Vasilescu et al., 2004) The COMPUTEOVERLAP function returns the number of words in common between two sets, ignoring function words or other words on a stop list. The original Lesk algorithm defines the context in a more complex way. == Criticisms == Unfortunately, Lesk’s approach is very sensitive to the exact wording of definitions, so the absence of a certain word can radically change the results. Further, the algorithm determines overlaps only among the glosses of the senses being considered. This is a significant limitation in that dictionary glosses tend to be fairly short and do not provide sufficient vocabulary to relate fine-grained sense distinctions. A lot of work has appeared offering different modifications of this algorithm. These works use other resources for analysis (thesauruses, synonyms dictionaries or morphological and syntactic models): for instance, it may use such information as synonyms, different derivatives, or words from definitions of words from definitions. == Lesk variants == Original Lesk (Lesk, 1986) Adapted/Extended Lesk (Banerjee and Pederson, 2002/2003): In the adaptive lesk algorithm, a word vector is created corresponds to every content word in the wordnet gloss. Concatenating glosses of related concepts in WordNet can be used to augment this vector. The vector contains the co-occurrence counts of words co-occurring with w in a large corpus. Adding all the word vectors for all the content words in its gloss creates the Gloss vector g for a concept. Relatedness is determined by comparing the gloss vector using the Cosine similarity measure. There are a lot of studies concerning Lesk and its extensions: Wilks and Stevenson, 1998, 1999; Mahesh et al., 1997; Cowie et al., 1992; Yarowsky, 1992; Pook and Catlett, 1988; Kilgarriff and Rosensweig, 2000; Kwong, 2001; Nastase and Szpakowicz, 2001; Gelbukh and Sidorov, 2004.
Read more →
Language engineering

Language engineering involves the creation of natural language processing systems, whose cost and outputs are measurable and predictable. It is a distinct field contrasted to natural language processing and computational linguistics. A recent trend of language engineering is the use of Semantic Web technologies for the creation, archiving, processing, and retrieval of machine processable language data. Meta-Language Engineering is a proposed extension of Language Engineering first recorded in 2025, associated with the work of Delyone de Paula Canedo Filho. The term is used to designate an approach that, in addition to natural language processing, encompasses the symbolic, cognitive, and epistemological structuring of language systems.
Read more →
Adversarial stylometry

Adversarial stylometry is the practice of altering writing style to reduce the potential for stylometry to discover the author's identity or their characteristics. This task is also known as authorship obfuscation or authorship anonymisation. Stylometry poses a significant privacy challenge in its ability to unmask anonymous authors or to link pseudonyms to an author's other identities, which, for example, creates difficulties for whistleblowers, activists, and hoaxers and fraudsters. The privacy risk is expected to grow as machine learning techniques and text corpora develop. All adversarial stylometry shares the core idea of faithfully paraphrasing the source text so that the meaning is unchanged but the stylistic signals are obscured. Such a faithful paraphrase is an adversarial example for a stylometric classifier. Several broad approaches to this exist, with some overlap: imitation, substituting the author's own style for another's; translation, applying machine translation with the hope that this eliminates characteristic style in the source text; and obfuscation, deliberately modifying a text's style to make it not resemble the author's own. Manually obscuring style is possible, but laborious; in some circumstances, it is preferable or necessary. Automated tooling, either semi- or fully-automatic, could assist an author. How best to perform the task and the design of such tools is an open research question. While some approaches have been shown to be able to defeat particular stylometric analyses, particularly those that do not account for the potential of adversariality, establishing safety in the face of unknown analyses is an issue. Ensuring the faithfulness of the paraphrase is a critical challenge for automated tools. It is uncertain if the practice of adversarial stylometry is detectable in itself. Some studies have found that particular methods produced signals in the output text, but a stylometrist who is uncertain of what methods may have been used may not be able to reliably detect them. == History == Rao & Rohatgi (2000), an early work in adversarial stylometry, identified machine translation as a possibility, but noted that the quality of translators available at the time presented severe challenges. Kacmarcik & Gamon (2006) is another early work. Brennan, Afroz & Greenstadt (2012) performed the first evaluation of adversarial stylometric methods on actual texts. Brennan & Greenstadt (2009) introduced the first corpus of adversarially authored texts specifically for evaluating stylometric methods; other corpora include the International Imitation Hemingway Competition, the Faux Faulkner contest, and the hoax blog A Gay Girl in Damascus. == Motivations == Rao & Rohatgi (2000) suggest that short, unattributed documents (i.e., anonymous posts) are not at risk of stylometric identification, but pseudonymous authors who have not practiced adversarial stylometry in producing corpuses of thousands of words may be vulnerable. Narayanan et al. (2012) attempted large-scale deanonymisation of 100,000 blog authors with mixed results: the identifications were significantly better than chance, but only accurately matched the blog and author a fifth of the time; identification improved with the number of posts written by the author in the corpus. Even if an author is not identified, some of their characteristics may still be deduced stylometrically, or stylometry may narrow the anonymity set of potential authors sufficiently for other information to complete the identification. Detecting author characteristics (e.g., gender or age) is often simpler than identifying an author from a large, possibly open, set of candidates. Modern machine learning techniques offer powerful tools for identification; further development of corpora and computational stylometric techniques are likely to raise further privacy issues. Gröndahl & Asokan (2020a) say that the general validity of the hypothesis underlying stylometry—that authors have invariant, content-independent 'style fingerprints'—is uncertain, but "the deanonymisation attack is a real privacy concern". Those interested in practicing adversarial stylometry and stylistic deception include whistleblowers avoiding retribution; journalists and activists; perpetrators of frauds and hoaxes; authors of fake reviews; literary forgers; criminals disguising their identity from investigators; and, generally, anyone with a desire for anonymity or pseudonymity. Authors, or agents acting on behalf of authors, may also attempt to remove stylistic clues to author characteristics (e.g., race or gender) so that knowledge of those characteristics cannot be used for discrimination (e.g., through algorithmic bias). Another possible use for adversarial stylometry is in disguising automatically generated text as human-authored. == Methods == With imitation, the author attempts to mislead stylometry by matching their style to another author's. An incomplete imitation, where some of the true author's unique characteristics appear alongside the imitated author's, can be a detectable signal for the use of adversarial stylometry. Imitation can be performed automatically with style transfer systems, though this typically requires a large corpus in the target style for the system to learn from. Another approach is translation, which employs machine translation of a source text to eliminate characteristic style, often through multiple translators in sequence to produce a round-trip translation. Such chained translation can lead to texts being significantly altered, even to the point of incomprehensibility; improved translation tools reduce this risk. More simply-structured texts can be easier to machine translate without losing the original meaning. Machine translation blurs into direct stylistic imitation or obfuscation achieved through automated style transfer, which can be viewed as a "translation" with the same language as input and output. With low-quality translation tools, an author can be required to manually correct major translation errors while avoiding the hazard of re-introducing stylistic characteristics. Wang, Juola & Riddell (2022) found that gross errors introduced by Google Translate were rare, but more common with several intermediate translations—however, occasional simple or short sentences and misspellings in the source text appeared verbatim in the output, potentially providing an identifying signal. Chain translation can leave characteristic traces of its application in a document, which may allow reconstruction of the intermediate languages used and the number of translation steps performed. Obfuscation involves deliberately changing the style of a text to reduce its similarity to other texts by some metric; this may be performed at the time of writing by conscious modification, or as part of a revision process with feedback from the metric being targeted as an input to decide when the text has been sufficiently obfuscated. In contrast to translation, complex texts can offer more opportunities for effective obfuscation without altering meaning, and likewise genres with more permissible variation allow more obfuscation. However, longer texts are harder to thoroughly obfuscate. Obfuscation can blend into imitation if the author develops a novel target style, distinct from their original style. With respect to masking author characteristics, obfuscation may aim to achieve a union (adding signals for imitated characteristics) or an intersection (removing signals and normalising) of other authors' styles. Avoiding the author's own idiosyncrasies and producing a "normalised" text is a critical obfuscatory step: an author may have a unique tendency to misspell certain words, use particular variants, or to format a document in a characteristic way. Stylometric signals vary in how simply they can be adversarially masked; an author may easily change their vocabulary by conscious choice, but altering the pattern of grammar or the letter frequency in their text may be harder to achieve, though Juola & Vescovi (2011) report that imitation typically succeeds at masking more characteristics than obfuscation. Automated obfuscation may require large amounts of training data written by the author. Concerning automated implementations of adversarial stylometry, two possible implementations are rule-based systems for paraphrasing; and encoder–decoder architectures, where the text passes through an intermediate format that is (intended to be) style-neutral. Another division in automated methods is whether there is feedback from an identification system or not. With such feedback, finding paraphrases for author masking has been characterised as a heuristic search problem, exploring textual variants until the result is stylistically sufficiently far (in the case of obfuscation) or near (in the case of imitation), which then constitutes an adversarial example for that identification system. == Evaluation == How
Read more →
LaMDA

LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications) is a family of conversational large language models developed by Google. Originally developed and introduced as Meena in 2020, the first-generation LaMDA was announced during the 2021 Google I/O keynote, while the second generation was announced the following year. In June 2022, LaMDA gained widespread attention when Google engineer Blake Lemoine made claims that the chatbot had become sentient. The scientific community has largely rejected Lemoine's claims, though it has led to conversations about the efficacy of the Turing test, which measures whether a computer can pass for a human. In February 2023, Google announced Gemini (then Bard), a conversational artificial intelligence chatbot powered by LaMDA, to counter the rise of OpenAI's ChatGPT. == History == === Background === On January 28, 2020, Google unveiled Meena, a neural network-powered chatbot with 2.6 billion parameters, which Google claimed to be superior to all other existing chatbots. The company previously hired computer scientist Ray Kurzweil in 2012 to develop multiple chatbots for the company, including one named Danielle. The Google Brain research team, who developed Meena, hoped to release the chatbot to the public in a limited capacity, but corporate executives refused on the grounds that Meena violated Google's "AI principles around safety and fairness". Meena was later renamed LaMDA as its data and computing power increased, and the Google Brain team again sought to deploy the software to the Google Assistant, the company's virtual assistant software, in addition to opening it up to a public demo. Both requests were once again denied by company leadership. LaMDA's two lead researchers, Daniel de Freitas and Noam Shazeer, eventually left the company in frustration. === First generation === Google announced the LaMDA conversational large language model during the Google I/O keynote on May 18, 2021, powered by artificial intelligence. The acronym stands for "Language Model for Dialogue Applications". Built on the seq2seq architecture, transformer-based neural networks developed by Google Research in 2017, LaMDA was trained on human dialogue and stories, allowing it to engage in open-ended conversations. Google states that responses generated by LaMDA have been ensured to be "sensible, interesting, and specific to the context". LaMDA has access to multiple symbolic text processing systems, including a database, a real-time clock and calendar, a mathematical calculator, and a natural language translation system, giving it superior accuracy in tasks supported by those systems, and making it among the first dual process chatbots. LaMDA is also not stateless because its "sensibleness" metric is fine-tuned by "pre-conditioning" each dialog turn by prepending many of the most recent dialog interactions, on a user-by-user basis. LaMDA is tuned on nine unique performance metrics: sensibleness, specificity, interestingness, safety, groundedness, informativeness, citation accuracy, helpfulness, and role consistency. Tests by Google indicated that LaMDA surpassed human responses in the area of interestingness. The pre-training dataset consists of 2.97B documents, 1.12B dialogs, and 13.39B utterances, for a total of 1.56T words. The largest LaMDA model has 137B non-embedding parameters. === Second generation === On May 11, 2022, Google unveiled LaMDA 2, the successor to LaMDA, during the 2022 Google I/O keynote. The new incarnation of the model draws examples of text from numerous sources, using it to formulate unique "natural conversations" on topics that it may not have been trained to respond to. === Sentience claims === On June 11, 2022, The Washington Post reported that Google engineer Blake Lemoine had been placed on paid administrative leave after Lemoine told company executives Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Jen Gennai that LaMDA had become sentient. Lemoine came to this conclusion after the chatbot made questionable responses to questions regarding self-identity, moral values, religion, and Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. Google refuted these claims, insisting that there was substantial evidence to indicate that LaMDA was not sentient. In an interview with Wired, Lemoine reiterated his claims that LaMDA was "a person" as dictated by the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, comparing it to an "alien intelligence of terrestrial origin". He further revealed that he had been dismissed by Google after he hired an attorney on LaMDA's behalf after the chatbot requested that Lemoine do so. On July 22, Google fired Lemoine, asserting that Blake had violated their policies "to safeguard product information" and rejected his claims as "wholly unfounded". Internal controversy instigated by the incident prompted Google executives to decide against releasing LaMDA to the public, which it had previously been considering. Lemoine's claims were widely pushed back by the scientific community. Many experts rejected the idea that LaMDA was sentient, including former New York University psychology professor Gary Marcus, David Pfau of Google sister company DeepMind, Erik Brynjolfsson of the Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence at Stanford University, and University of Surrey professor Adrian Hilton. Yann LeCun, who leads Meta Platforms' AI research team, stated that neural networks such as LaMDA were "not powerful enough to attain true intelligence". University of California, Santa Cruz professor Max Kreminski noted that LaMDA's architecture did not "support some key capabilities of human-like consciousness" and that its neural network weights were "frozen", assuming it was a typical large language model. Philosopher Nick Bostrom noted, however, that the lack of precise and consensual criteria for determining whether a system is conscious warrants some uncertainty. IBM Watson lead developer David Ferrucci compared how LaMDA appeared to be human in the same way Watson did when it was first introduced. Former Google AI ethicist Timnit Gebru called Lemoine a victim of a "hype cycle" initiated by researchers and the media. Lemoine's claims have also generated discussion on whether the Turing test remained useful to determine researchers' progress toward achieving artificial general intelligence, with Will Omerus of the Post opining that the test actually measured whether machine intelligence systems were capable of deceiving humans, while Brian Christian of The Atlantic said that the controversy was an instance of the ELIZA effect. == Products == === AI Test Kitchen === With the unveiling of LaMDA 2 in May 2022, Google also launched the AI Test Kitchen, a mobile application for the Android operating system powered by LaMDA capable of providing lists of suggestions on-demand based on a complex goal. Originally open only to Google employees, the app was set to be made available to "select academics, researchers, and policymakers" by invitation sometime in the year. In August, the company began allowing users in the U.S. to sign up for early access. In November, Google released a "season 2" update to the app, integrating a limited form of Google Brain's Imagen text-to-image model. A third iteration of the AI Test Kitchen was in development by January 2023, expected to launch at I/O later that year. Following the 2023 I/O keynote in May, Google added MusicLM, an AI-powered music generator first previewed in January, to the AI Test Kitchen app. In August, the app was delisted from Google Play and the Apple App Store, instead moving completely online. === Bard === On February 6, 2023, Google announced Bard, a conversational AI chatbot powered by LaMDA, in response to the unexpected popularity of OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot. Google positions the chatbot as a "collaborative AI service" rather than a search engine. Bard became available for early access on March 21. === Other products === In addition to Bard, Pichai also unveiled the company's Generative Language API, an application programming interface also based on LaMDA, which he announced would be opened up to third-party developers in March 2023. == Architecture == LaMDA is a decoder-only Transformer language model. It is pre-trained on a text corpus that includes both documents and dialogs consisting of 1.56 trillion words, and is then trained with fine-tuning data generated by manually annotated responses for "sensibleness, interestingness, and safety". LaMDA was retrieval-augmented to improve the accuracy of facts provided to the user. Three different models were tested, with the largest having 137 billion non-embedding parameters:
Read more →
Adversarial stylometry

Adversarial stylometry is the practice of altering writing style to reduce the potential for stylometry to discover the author's identity or their characteristics. This task is also known as authorship obfuscation or authorship anonymisation. Stylometry poses a significant privacy challenge in its ability to unmask anonymous authors or to link pseudonyms to an author's other identities, which, for example, creates difficulties for whistleblowers, activists, and hoaxers and fraudsters. The privacy risk is expected to grow as machine learning techniques and text corpora develop. All adversarial stylometry shares the core idea of faithfully paraphrasing the source text so that the meaning is unchanged but the stylistic signals are obscured. Such a faithful paraphrase is an adversarial example for a stylometric classifier. Several broad approaches to this exist, with some overlap: imitation, substituting the author's own style for another's; translation, applying machine translation with the hope that this eliminates characteristic style in the source text; and obfuscation, deliberately modifying a text's style to make it not resemble the author's own. Manually obscuring style is possible, but laborious; in some circumstances, it is preferable or necessary. Automated tooling, either semi- or fully-automatic, could assist an author. How best to perform the task and the design of such tools is an open research question. While some approaches have been shown to be able to defeat particular stylometric analyses, particularly those that do not account for the potential of adversariality, establishing safety in the face of unknown analyses is an issue. Ensuring the faithfulness of the paraphrase is a critical challenge for automated tools. It is uncertain if the practice of adversarial stylometry is detectable in itself. Some studies have found that particular methods produced signals in the output text, but a stylometrist who is uncertain of what methods may have been used may not be able to reliably detect them. == History == Rao & Rohatgi (2000), an early work in adversarial stylometry, identified machine translation as a possibility, but noted that the quality of translators available at the time presented severe challenges. Kacmarcik & Gamon (2006) is another early work. Brennan, Afroz & Greenstadt (2012) performed the first evaluation of adversarial stylometric methods on actual texts. Brennan & Greenstadt (2009) introduced the first corpus of adversarially authored texts specifically for evaluating stylometric methods; other corpora include the International Imitation Hemingway Competition, the Faux Faulkner contest, and the hoax blog A Gay Girl in Damascus. == Motivations == Rao & Rohatgi (2000) suggest that short, unattributed documents (i.e., anonymous posts) are not at risk of stylometric identification, but pseudonymous authors who have not practiced adversarial stylometry in producing corpuses of thousands of words may be vulnerable. Narayanan et al. (2012) attempted large-scale deanonymisation of 100,000 blog authors with mixed results: the identifications were significantly better than chance, but only accurately matched the blog and author a fifth of the time; identification improved with the number of posts written by the author in the corpus. Even if an author is not identified, some of their characteristics may still be deduced stylometrically, or stylometry may narrow the anonymity set of potential authors sufficiently for other information to complete the identification. Detecting author characteristics (e.g., gender or age) is often simpler than identifying an author from a large, possibly open, set of candidates. Modern machine learning techniques offer powerful tools for identification; further development of corpora and computational stylometric techniques are likely to raise further privacy issues. Gröndahl & Asokan (2020a) say that the general validity of the hypothesis underlying stylometry—that authors have invariant, content-independent 'style fingerprints'—is uncertain, but "the deanonymisation attack is a real privacy concern". Those interested in practicing adversarial stylometry and stylistic deception include whistleblowers avoiding retribution; journalists and activists; perpetrators of frauds and hoaxes; authors of fake reviews; literary forgers; criminals disguising their identity from investigators; and, generally, anyone with a desire for anonymity or pseudonymity. Authors, or agents acting on behalf of authors, may also attempt to remove stylistic clues to author characteristics (e.g., race or gender) so that knowledge of those characteristics cannot be used for discrimination (e.g., through algorithmic bias). Another possible use for adversarial stylometry is in disguising automatically generated text as human-authored. == Methods == With imitation, the author attempts to mislead stylometry by matching their style to another author's. An incomplete imitation, where some of the true author's unique characteristics appear alongside the imitated author's, can be a detectable signal for the use of adversarial stylometry. Imitation can be performed automatically with style transfer systems, though this typically requires a large corpus in the target style for the system to learn from. Another approach is translation, which employs machine translation of a source text to eliminate characteristic style, often through multiple translators in sequence to produce a round-trip translation. Such chained translation can lead to texts being significantly altered, even to the point of incomprehensibility; improved translation tools reduce this risk. More simply-structured texts can be easier to machine translate without losing the original meaning. Machine translation blurs into direct stylistic imitation or obfuscation achieved through automated style transfer, which can be viewed as a "translation" with the same language as input and output. With low-quality translation tools, an author can be required to manually correct major translation errors while avoiding the hazard of re-introducing stylistic characteristics. Wang, Juola & Riddell (2022) found that gross errors introduced by Google Translate were rare, but more common with several intermediate translations—however, occasional simple or short sentences and misspellings in the source text appeared verbatim in the output, potentially providing an identifying signal. Chain translation can leave characteristic traces of its application in a document, which may allow reconstruction of the intermediate languages used and the number of translation steps performed. Obfuscation involves deliberately changing the style of a text to reduce its similarity to other texts by some metric; this may be performed at the time of writing by conscious modification, or as part of a revision process with feedback from the metric being targeted as an input to decide when the text has been sufficiently obfuscated. In contrast to translation, complex texts can offer more opportunities for effective obfuscation without altering meaning, and likewise genres with more permissible variation allow more obfuscation. However, longer texts are harder to thoroughly obfuscate. Obfuscation can blend into imitation if the author develops a novel target style, distinct from their original style. With respect to masking author characteristics, obfuscation may aim to achieve a union (adding signals for imitated characteristics) or an intersection (removing signals and normalising) of other authors' styles. Avoiding the author's own idiosyncrasies and producing a "normalised" text is a critical obfuscatory step: an author may have a unique tendency to misspell certain words, use particular variants, or to format a document in a characteristic way. Stylometric signals vary in how simply they can be adversarially masked; an author may easily change their vocabulary by conscious choice, but altering the pattern of grammar or the letter frequency in their text may be harder to achieve, though Juola & Vescovi (2011) report that imitation typically succeeds at masking more characteristics than obfuscation. Automated obfuscation may require large amounts of training data written by the author. Concerning automated implementations of adversarial stylometry, two possible implementations are rule-based systems for paraphrasing; and encoder–decoder architectures, where the text passes through an intermediate format that is (intended to be) style-neutral. Another division in automated methods is whether there is feedback from an identification system or not. With such feedback, finding paraphrases for author masking has been characterised as a heuristic search problem, exploring textual variants until the result is stylistically sufficiently far (in the case of obfuscation) or near (in the case of imitation), which then constitutes an adversarial example for that identification system. == Evaluation == How
Read more →
Machine translation software usability

The sections below give objective criteria for evaluating the usability of machine translation software output. == Stationarity or canonical form == Do repeated translations converge on a single expression in both languages? I.e. does the translation method show stationarity or produce a canonical form? Does the translation become stationary without losing the original meaning? This metric has been criticized as not being well correlated with BLEU (BiLingual Evaluation Understudy) scores. == Adaptive to colloquialism, argot or slang == Is the system adaptive to colloquialism, argot or slang? The French language has many rules for creating words in the speech and writing of popular culture. Two such rules are: (a) The reverse spelling of words such as femme to meuf. (This is called verlan.) (b) The attachment of the suffix -ard to a noun or verb to form a proper noun. For example, the noun faluche means "student hat". The word faluchard formed from faluche colloquially can mean, depending on context, "a group of students", "a gathering of students" and "behavior typical of a student". The Google translator as of 28 December 2006 doesn't derive the constructed words as for example from rule (b), as shown here: Il y a une chorale falucharde mercredi, venez nombreux, les faluchards chantent des paillardes! ==> There is a choral society falucharde Wednesday, come many, the faluchards sing loose-living women! French argot has three levels of usage: familier or friendly, acceptable among friends, family and peers but not at work grossier or swear words, acceptable among friends and peers but not at work or in family verlan or ghetto slang, acceptable among lower classes but not among middle or upper classes The United States National Institute of Standards and Technology conducts annual evaluations [1] Archived 2009-03-22 at the Wayback Machine of machine translation systems based on the BLEU-4 criterion [2]. A combined method called IQmt which incorporates BLEU and additional metrics NIST, GTM, ROUGE and METEOR has been implemented by Gimenez and Amigo [3]. == Well-formed output == Is the output grammatical or well-formed in the target language? Using an interlingua should be helpful in this regard, because with a fixed interlingua one should be able to write a grammatical mapping to the target language from the interlingua. Consider the following Arabic language input and English language translation result from the Google translator as of 27 December 2006 [4]. This Google translator output doesn't parse using a reasonable English grammar: وعن حوادث التدافع عند شعيرة رمي الجمرات -التي كثيرا ما يسقط فيها العديد من الضحايا- أشار الأمير نايف إلى إدخال "تحسينات كثيرة في جسر الجمرات ستمنع بإذن الله حدوث أي تزاحم". ==> And incidents at the push Carbuncles-throwing ritual, which often fall where many of the victims - Prince Nayef pointed to the introduction of "many improvements in bridge Carbuncles God would stop the occurrence of any competing." == Semantics preservation == Do repeated re-translations preserve the semantics of the original sentence? For example, consider the following English input passed multiple times into and out of French using the Google translator as of 27 December 2006: Better a day earlier than a day late. ==> Améliorer un jour plus tôt qu'un jour tard. ==> To improve one day earlier than a day late. ==> Pour améliorer un jour plus tôt qu'un jour tard. ==> To improve one day earlier than a day late. As noted above and in, this kind of round-trip translation is a very unreliable method of evaluation. == Trustworthiness and security == An interesting peculiarity of Google Translate as of 24 January 2008 (corrected as of 25 January 2008) is the following result when translating from English to Spanish, which shows an embedded joke in the English-Spanish dictionary which has some added poignancy given recent events: Heath Ledger is dead ==> Tom Cruise está muerto This raises the issue of trustworthiness when relying on a machine translation system embedded in a Life-critical system in which the translation system has input to a Safety Critical Decision Making process. Conjointly it raises the issue of whether in a given use the software of the machine translation system is safe from hackers. It is not known whether this feature of Google Translate was the result of a joke/hack or perhaps an unintended consequence of the use of a method such as statistical machine translation. Reporters from CNET Networks asked Google for an explanation on January 24, 2008; Google said only that it was an "internal issue with Google Translate". The mistranslation was the subject of much hilarity and speculation on the Internet. If it is an unintended consequence of the use of a method such as statistical machine translation, and not a joke/hack, then this event is a demonstration of a potential source of critical unreliability in the statistical machine translation method. In human translations, in particular on the part of interpreters, selectivity on the part of the translator in performing a translation is often commented on when one of the two parties being served by the interpreter knows both languages. This leads to the issue of whether a particular translation could be considered verifiable. In this case, a converging round-trip translation would be a kind of verification.
Read more →