Douglas F. Parkhill is a Canadian technologist and former research minister, best known for his pioneering work on what is now called cloud computing, and his work on Canada's Telidon videotex project. He started working at the Canadian ministry of Communications (now part of the Department of Trade and Industry) in 1969, having previously worked at the Mitre Corporation. He was responsible for many activities in communications satellites, computer communications, command and control systems and telecommunications. He was winner of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's Outstanding Achievement award in 1982, the Conestoga shield for services to government and industry in computer communications research and development, the Touche Ross award for Telidon development. He was an author of several publications including the 1966 book, The Challenge of the Computer Utility. In the book, Parkhill thoroughly explored many of the modern-day characteristics of cloud computing (elastic provisioning through a utility service) as well as the comparison to the electricity industry and the use of public, private, government and community forms. The book won the McKinsey Foundation award for distinguished contributions to management literature. He worked with Dave Godfrey, the Canadian writer and novelist on a later book Gutenberg two about the social and political meaning of computer technology. He was in charge of research at the Federal Department of Communications at the time when the department was funding development of the Telidon videotext system, was heavily involved in promoting the system, and had overall control of the program. In a radio broadcast in 1980, he outlined some of the potential of the system, from financial information, to theatre reservations, with the ability to pay and print out tickets from the system. He later documented the history of the Telidon project, and the history of videotext in general. == Publications == The Challenge of the Computer Utility, Addison-Wesley, 1966, ISBN 0-201-05720-4 edited with Dave Godfrey, Gutenberg Two: The New Electronics and Social Change, Press Porcepic, 1979, ISBN 0-88878-191-1 The Beginning of a Beginning. Ottawa; Department of Communications, 1987. A history of the Telidon project.
Embedding (machine learning)
In machine learning, embedding is a representation learning technique that maps complex, high-dimensional data into a lower-dimensional vector space of numerical vectors. == Technique == It also denotes the resulting representation, where meaningful patterns or relationships are preserved. As a technique, it learns these vectors from data like words, images, or user interactions, differing from manually designed methods such as one-hot encoding. This process reduces complexity and captures key features without needing prior knowledge of the domain. == Similarity == In natural language processing, words or concepts may be represented as feature vectors, where similar concepts are mapped to nearby vectors. The resulting embeddings vary by type, including word embeddings for text (e.g., Word2Vec), image embeddings for visual data, and knowledge graph embeddings for knowledge graphs, each tailored to tasks like NLP, computer vision, or recommendation systems. This dual role enhances model efficiency and accuracy by automating feature extraction and revealing latent similarities across diverse applications. To measure the distance between two embeddings, a similarity measure can be used to find the overall similarity of the concepts represented by the embeddings. If the vectors are normalized to have a magnitude of 1, then the similarity measures are proportional to cos ( θ a b ) {\displaystyle \cos \left(\theta _{ab}\right)} . The cosine similarity disregards the magnitude of the vector when determining similarity, so it is less biased towards training data that appears very frequently. The dot product includes the magnitude inherently, so it will tend to value more popular data. Generally, for high-dimensional vector spaces, vectors tend to converge in distance, so Euclidean distance becomes less reliable for large embedding vectors.
Cobham's theorem
Cobham's theorem is a theorem in combinatorics on words that has important connections with number theory, notably transcendental numbers, and automata theory. Informally, the theorem gives the condition for the members of a set S of natural numbers written in bases b1 and base b2 to be recognised by finite automata. Specifically, consider bases b1 and b2 such that they are not powers of the same integer. Cobham's theorem states that S written in bases b1 and b2 is recognised by finite automata if and only if S differs by a finite set from a finite union of arithmetic progressions. The theorem was proved by Alan Cobham in 1969 and has since given rise to many extensions and generalisations. == Definitions == Let n > 0 {\displaystyle n>0} be an integer. The representation of a natural number n {\textstyle n} in base b {\textstyle b} is the sequence of digits n 0 n 1 ⋯ n h {\displaystyle n_{0}n_{1}\cdots n_{h}} such that n = n 0 + n 1 b + ⋯ + n h b h {\displaystyle n=n_{0}+n_{1}b+\cdots +n_{h}b^{h}} where 0 ≤ n 0 , n 1 , … , n h < b {\displaystyle 0\leq n_{0},n_{1},\ldots ,n_{h} In theoretical linguistics and computational linguistics, probabilistic context free grammars (PCFGs) extend context-free grammars, similar to how hidden Markov models extend regular grammars. Each production is assigned a probability. The probability of a derivation (parse) is the product of the probabilities of the productions used in that derivation. These probabilities can be viewed as parameters of the model, and for large problems it is convenient to learn these parameters via machine learning. A probabilistic grammar's validity is constrained by context of its training dataset. PCFGs originated from grammar theory, and have application in areas as diverse as natural language processing to the study the structure of RNA molecules and design of programming languages. Designing efficient PCFGs has to weigh factors of scalability and generality. Issues such as grammar ambiguity must be resolved. The grammar design affects results accuracy. Grammar parsing algorithms have various time and memory requirements. == Definitions == Derivation: The process of recursive generation of strings from a grammar. Parsing: Finding a valid derivation using an automaton. Parse Tree: The alignment of the grammar to a sequence. An example of a parser for PCFG grammars is the pushdown automaton. The algorithm parses grammar nonterminals from left to right in a stack-like manner. This brute-force approach is not very efficient. In RNA secondary structure prediction variants of the Cocke–Younger–Kasami (CYK) algorithm provide more efficient alternatives to grammar parsing than pushdown automata. Another example of a PCFG parser is the Stanford Statistical Parser which has been trained using Treebank. == Formal definition == Similar to a CFG, a probabilistic context-free grammar G can be defined by a quintuple: G = ( M , T , R , S , P ) {\displaystyle G=(M,T,R,S,P)} where M is the set of non-terminal symbols T is the set of terminal symbols R is the set of production rules S is the start symbol P is the set of probabilities on production rules == Relation with hidden Markov models == PCFGs models extend context-free grammars the same way as hidden Markov models extend regular grammars. The Inside-Outside algorithm is an analogue of the Forward-Backward algorithm. It computes the total probability of all derivations that are consistent with a given sequence, based on some PCFG. This is equivalent to the probability of the PCFG generating the sequence, and is intuitively a measure of how consistent the sequence is with the given grammar. The Inside-Outside algorithm is used in model parametrization to estimate prior frequencies observed from training sequences in the case of RNAs. Dynamic programming variants of the CYK algorithm find the Viterbi parse of a RNA sequence for a PCFG model. This parse is the most likely derivation of the sequence by the given PCFG. == Grammar construction == Context-free grammars are represented as a set of rules inspired from attempts to model natural languages. The rules are absolute and have a typical syntax representation known as Backus–Naur form. The production rules consist of terminal { a , b } {\displaystyle \left\{a,b\right\}} and non-terminal S symbols and a blank ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } may also be used as an end point. In the production rules of CFG and PCFG the left side has only one nonterminal whereas the right side can be any string of terminal or nonterminals. In PCFG nulls are excluded. An example of a grammar: S → a S , S → b S , S → ϵ {\displaystyle S\to aS,S\to bS,S\to \epsilon } This grammar can be shortened using the '|' ('or') character into: S → a S | b S | ϵ {\displaystyle S\to aS|bS|\epsilon } Terminals in a grammar are words and through the grammar rules a non-terminal symbol is transformed into a string of either terminals and/or non-terminals. The above grammar is read as "beginning from a non-terminal S the emission can generate either a or b or ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } ". Its derivation is: S ⇒ a S ⇒ a b S ⇒ a b b S ⇒ a b b {\displaystyle S\Rightarrow aS\Rightarrow abS\Rightarrow abbS\Rightarrow abb} Ambiguous grammar may result in ambiguous parsing if applied on homographs since the same word sequence can have more than one interpretation. Pun sentences such as the newspaper headline "Iraqi Head Seeks Arms" are an example of ambiguous parses. One strategy of dealing with ambiguous parses (originating with grammarians as early as Pāṇini) is to add yet more rules, or prioritize them so that one rule takes precedence over others. This, however, has the drawback of proliferating the rules, often to the point where they become difficult to manage. Another difficulty is overgeneration, where unlicensed structures are also generated. Probabilistic grammars circumvent these problems by ranking various productions on frequency weights, resulting in a "most likely" (winner-take-all) interpretation. As usage patterns are altered in diachronic shifts, these probabilistic rules can be re-learned, thus updating the grammar. Assigning probability to production rules makes a PCFG. These probabilities are informed by observing distributions on a training set of similar composition to the language to be modeled. On most samples of broad language, probabilistic grammars where probabilities are estimated from data typically outperform hand-crafted grammars. CFGs when contrasted with PCFGs are not applicable to RNA structure prediction because while they incorporate sequence-structure relationship they lack the scoring metrics that reveal a sequence structural potential == Weighted context-free grammar == A weighted context-free grammar (WCFG) is a more general category of context-free grammar, where each production has a numeric weight associated with it. The weight of a specific parse tree in a WCFG is the product (or sum ) of all rule weights in the tree. Each rule weight is included as often as the rule is used in the tree. A special case of WCFGs are PCFGs, where the weights are (logarithms of ) probabilities. An extended version of the CYK algorithm can be used to find the "lightest" (least-weight) derivation of a string given some WCFG. When the tree weight is the product of the rule weights, WCFGs and PCFGs can express the same set of probability distributions. == Applications == === RNA structure prediction === Since the 1990s, PCFG has been applied to model RNA structures. Energy minimization and PCFG provide ways of predicting RNA secondary structure with comparable performance. However structure prediction by PCFGs is scored probabilistically rather than by minimum free energy calculation. PCFG model parameters are directly derived from frequencies of different features observed in databases of RNA structures rather than by experimental determination as is the case with energy minimization methods. The types of various structure that can be modeled by a PCFG include long range interactions, pairwise structure and other nested structures. However, pseudoknots can not be modeled. PCFGs extend CFG by assigning probabilities to each production rule. A maximum probability parse tree from the grammar implies a maximum probability structure. Since RNAs preserve their structures over their primary sequence, RNA structure prediction can be guided by combining evolutionary information from comparative sequence analysis with biophysical knowledge about a structure plausibility based on such probabilities. Also search results for structural homologs using PCFG rules are scored according to PCFG derivations probabilities. Therefore, building grammar to model the behavior of base-pairs and single-stranded regions starts with exploring features of structural multiple sequence alignment of related RNAs. S → a S a | b S b | a a | b b {\displaystyle S\to aSa|bSb|aa|bb} The above grammar generates a string in an outside-in fashion, that is the basepair on the furthest extremes of the terminal is derived first. So a string such as a a b a a b a a {\displaystyle aabaabaa} is derived by first generating the distal a's on both sides before moving inwards: S ⇒ a S a ⇒ a a S a a ⇒ a a b S b a a ⇒ a a b a a b a a {\displaystyle S\Rightarrow aSa\Rightarrow aaSaa\Rightarrow aabSbaa\Rightarrow aabaabaa} A PCFG model extendibility allows constraining structure prediction by incorporating expectations about different features of an RNA . Such expectation may reflect for example the propensity for assuming a certain structure by an RNA. However incorporation of too much information may increase PCFG space and memory complexity and it is desirable that a PCFG-based model be as simple as possible. Every possible string x a grammar generates is assigned a probability weight P ( x | θ ) {\displaystyle P(x|\theta )} given the PCFG model θ {\displaystyle \theta } . It follows that the sum of all probabilities to all possible grammar productions is ∑ x P ( x | θ ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{\text{x}}P(x|\theta )=1} . The scores Shopping for the best AI essay writer? An AI essay writer 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 essay writer slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence. In artificial neural networks, a hidden layer is a layer of artificial neurons that is neither an input layer nor an output layer. The simplest examples appear in multilayer perceptrons (MLP), as illustrated in the diagram. An MLP without any hidden layer is essentially just a linear model. With hidden layers and activation functions, however, nonlinearity is introduced into the model. In typical machine learning practice, the weights and biases are initialized, then iteratively updated during training via backpropagation. Curious about the best AI marketing tool? An AI marketing tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI marketing tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.Probabilistic context-free grammar
How to Choose an AI Essay Writer
Hidden layer
How to Choose an AI Marketing Tool