A device-independent pixel (also: density-independent pixel, dip, dp) is a unit of length. A typical use is to allow mobile device software to scale the display of information and user interaction to different screen sizes. The abstraction allows an application to work in pixels as a measurement, while the underlying graphics system converts the abstract pixel measurements of the application into real pixel measurements appropriate to the particular device. For example, on the Android operating system a device-independent pixel is equivalent to one physical pixel on a 160 dpi screen, while the Windows Presentation Foundation specifies one device-independent pixel as equivalent to 1/96th of an inch. As dp is a physical unit it has an absolute value which can be measured in traditional units, e.g. for Android devices 1 dp equals 1/160 of inch or 0.15875 mm. While traditional pixels only refer to the display of information, device-independent pixels may also be used to measure user input such as input on a touch screen device.
Vulnerability assessment (computing)
Vulnerability assessment is a process of defining, identifying and classifying the security holes in information technology systems. An attacker can exploit a vulnerability to violate the security of a system. Some known vulnerabilities are Authentication Vulnerability, Authorization Vulnerability and Input Validation Vulnerability. == Purpose == Before deploying a system, it first must go through from a series of vulnerability assessments that will ensure that the build system is secure from all the known security risks. When a new vulnerability is discovered, the system administrator can again perform an assessment, discover which modules are vulnerable, and start the patch process. After the fixes are in place, another assessment can be run to verify that the vulnerabilities were actually resolved. This cycle of assess, patch, and re-assess has become the standard method for many organizations to manage their security issues. The primary purpose of the assessment is to find the vulnerabilities in the system, but the assessment report conveys to stakeholders that the system is secured from these vulnerabilities. If an intruder gained access to a network consisting of vulnerable Web servers, it is safe to assume that he gained access to those systems as well. Because of assessment report, the security administrator will be able to determine how intrusion occurred, identify compromised assets and take appropriate security measures to prevent critical damage to the system. == Assessment types == Depending on the system a vulnerability assessment can have many types and level. === Host assessment === A host assessment looks for system-level vulnerabilities such as insecure file permissions, application level bugs, backdoor and Trojan horse installations. It requires specialized tools for the operating system and software packages being used, in addition to administrative access to each system that should be tested. Host assessment is often very costly in term of time, and thus is only used in the assessment of critical systems. Tools like COPS and Tiger are popular in host assessment. === Network assessment === In a network assessment one assess the network for known vulnerabilities. It locates all systems on a network, determines what network services are in use, and then analyzes those services for potential vulnerabilities. This process does not require any configuration changes on the systems being assessed. Unlike host assessment, network assessment requires little computational cost and effort. == Vulnerability assessment vs penetration testing == Vulnerability assessment and penetration testing are two different testing methods. They are differentiated on the basis of certain specific parameters. == Regulatory requirements == Vulnerability assessments are mandated or strongly recommended by several regulatory frameworks. In the United States healthcare sector, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule requires covered entities to conduct periodic evaluations of their security posture, and a December 2024 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would explicitly require vulnerability scanning at least every six months for systems containing electronic protected health information. The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) requires quarterly vulnerability scans for organizations that process credit card transactions, and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework includes vulnerability assessment as a core component of its Identify function.
The Best Free AI Photo Editor for Beginners
Comparing the best AI photo editor? An AI photo editor is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI photo editor slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.
MedSLT
MedSLT is a medium-ranged open source spoken language translator developed by the University of Geneva. It is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The system has been designed for the medical domain. It currently covers the doctor-patient diagnosis dialogues for the domains of headache, chest and abdominal pain in English, French, Japanese, Spanish, Catalan and Arabic. The vocabulary used ranges from 350 to 1000 words depending on the domain and language pair. == Motivation for creating MedSLT == With more than 6000 languages worldwide, language barriers become an increasing problem for healthcare. The lack of medical interpreters can lead to disastrous consequences. These range from prolonged hospital stays to wrong diagnosis and medication. A study found that only about half of the 23 million people with limited proficiency in English in the United States had been provided with a medical interpreter. Millions of refugees and immigrants worldwide face similar problems, although not always as severe. The gap between need and availability of language services might be closed with speech translation systems. == Challenges == The biggest challenge is and was to develop an ideal system, though it is not possible to do so at this moment. This system would fit the needs of doctors and the patients alike, and would provide accurate and flexible translation. A realisation of an ideal translation tool is impossible without the use of unrestricted language and a large vocabulary. Medical professionals demand high reliability from translation. This favours rule-based architectures over data-driven. The latter are more suitable for inexperienced users. Rule-based architectures achieve higher accuracy especially if used by experts. Though it is highly desirable to build a bidirectional system supporting a two-way dialogue, which concentrates on patient-centered communication, the patients will have difficult access to the system. Most patients have no experience with such systems. Less reliable results for translation from the patient-to-doctor direction are the outcome. To overcome this the system needs to provide either easy access or an integrated help tool to guide the users through the process. Although controlled rule-based systems achieve good results, they are brittle. To receive good translations the user needs to be familiar with the system and has to know what is covered by the grammar. Covering different sub-domains (headache, chest and abdominal pain) and language pairs presents additional problems. A shared structure and grammar for all subdomains and language pairs minimises development and maintenance costs. The integration of new doctor and patient languages is also a key challenge. Adding new languages should be quick and rather simple, because he system has to be used in many countries to cover multiple language pairs. Direct translation from source to target language proves to be rather difficult. Using interlingua for unidirectional translation instead of a bidirectional approach helps to simplify the translation process. On top of this, the system has to run on different platforms, because mobility is a key issue for many attending physicians. A portable version addresses these issues, but has to deal with the heavy load of the translation process. == The MedSLT system == The system's speech recognition is based on the Nuance 8.5 platform that supports grammar-based language models. All grammars used for recognition, analysis and generation are compiled from a small set of unification grammars. These core grammars are created by the open-source Regulus Grammar Compiler and are automatically specialised using corpus-driven methods. The specialisation considers both the task (recognition, analysis and generation) and the sub-domain (headache, chest and abdominal pain). The specialisation uses the explanation-based learning algorithm to create a treebank from the training corpus. These examples are divided into sets of subtrees by using domain- and grammar-specific rules (also known as "operationality criteria" in machine translation). The subtree rules are combined into a single rule, creating a specialised unification grammar. The grammar is compiled to an executable form, for analysis and generation by a parser or generator, and for recognition of a CFG grammar. A CFG grammar is required for the Nuance engine. Compilation by Nuance-specific criteria turns the grammar into speech recognition packages. The final step uses the training corpus again for statistical tuning of the language model. MedSLT translation processes are based on a rule-based interlingua. The interlingua is treated as an actual language (it is a very simple version of English) and is specified by a Regulus grammar. This grammar does not take account of complex surface syntax phenomena of real languages like movement or agreement. A set of rules is the base for translating the source language semantic representation to interlingua. Another set of rules covers the translation from interlingua to the target language. The semantic representations are converted to surface words using a target language grammar. Defining semantics for a specific domain enables the developers to specify interlingua with a small, tightly constraint semantic grammar. The translations based on interlingua match direct translations almost perfectly, because the development shifts to a decoupled monolingual architecture. A set of combined interlingua corpora, with one corpus per sub-domain, is the core of this architecture. All source language development corpora are translated to interlingua. These are sorted and grouped together with the corresponding source language examples. The interlingua forms are then translated into each target language, and the results are attached together. This organisation improves the translation process. There is no duplicated effort for multilingual regression testing, because each parsing and generation step is performed once. This allows more frequent testing. The representation language used for all forms is Almost Flat Functional semantics. AFF is derived from the Spoken Language Translator, the precursor of MEdSLT. SLT uses Quasi Logical Form, a logical based representation language. QLF is an expressive yet very complex language, causing high development and maintenance costs. A minimal solution was planned for the medical translator. Early versions of the system utilised a language using simple feature-value lists. These lists were supplemented with an optional level of nesting to represent subordinate clauses (i.e. embedded clauses). Determiners were not included, because they are hard to translate and it is difficult to reliably distinguish and recognise them. This way, translation rules became a lot simpler, because only a list of feature-value pairs had to be mapped to another list of pairs. The language turned out to be underconstrained. Adding natural sortal constraints to the grammar solved this problem, but also returned the language to a more expressive formalism. The newly created AFF combines elements of QLF and the feature-value list semantics. This version of flat semantics is enhanced with additional functional markings. This together with a relatively small vocabulary solved the ambiguity problem of the original flat representation language without creating overly complex rules. In addition, the syntactic structures are treated carefully by a compromise of linguistic and engineering traditions. The grammars are in fact retrieved from linguistically motivated resource, using corpus-based methods. They are driven by small sets of examples. This results in simpler and flatter domain-specific grammars. The semantics are less sophisticated and represent a minimal approach in the engineering tradition. Each lexical item contributes a set of feature-value pairs. This leads to simple-to-write translation rules. There are only lists of features-value pairs to map to other feature-value pairs. However, as a result the machine translation channel model becomes underspecified and is weakened, whereas the target language model is strengthened. An intelligent help module is integrated into the system to support users in utilising the full coverage of the grammars. This tool provides the user with examples as close as possible to the users original utterance. The output is based on a library. Each sub-domain and language pair has its own library. The contents are extracted from the combined interlingua corpora. The help module scans the corpus for the tagged source language form mapped with the corresponding target language form. Additionally a second statistical recogniser is used as backup. The results are used to select similar examples from the library. According to the generation preferences, one of the derived strings is picked and the target language string is realised as spoken language. Some statistical corpus based meth
Best AI Paragraph Rewriters in 2026
In search of the best AI paragraph rewriter? An AI paragraph rewriter is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI paragraph rewriter slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.
CHAOS (chess)
CHAOS (Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff) is a chess playing program that was developed by programmers working at the RCA Systems Programming division in the late 1960s. It played competitively in computer chess competitions in the 1970s and 1980s. It differed from other programs of that era in its look-ahead philosophy, choosing to use chess knowledge to evaluate fewer positions and continuations as opposed to simple evaluations that relied on deep look-ahead to avoid bad moves. == Introduction == CHAOS was originally developed by Ira Ruben, Fred Swartz, Victor Berman, Joe Winograd and William Toikka while working at RCA in Cinnaminson, NJ. Its name is an acronym for 'Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff.' Program development moved to the Computing Center of the University of Michigan when Swartz changed jobs, and Mike Alexander joined the development group. Swartz, Alexander and Berman were continuously group members from that point onward in CHAOS' evolution, as others of the original authors left and new members contributed episodically. Chess Senior Master Jack O'Keefe contributed to CHAOS' development from about 1980 onwards. CHAOS was written in Fortran, except for low-level board representation manipulations written in assembly language or C. Due to this portability, it ran on RCA, Univac and IBM-compatible mainframes in its lifetime. CHAOS heralds from the mainframe computing era when only machines of that capacity were able to play at a high level. Consequently, development and testing could only take place at off-peak times for production use of the machine. In a competition, CHAOS had to run on a dedicated mainframe with a telephone link to the match venue. In its later years, CHAOS ran on computers on the machine assembly floor of Amdahl Corporation on MTS. == Background == === Chess and artificial intelligence === Mathematicians Claude Shannon and Alan Turing, working separately, were the first to view playing chess as a challenge to machines. Working for AT&T / Bell Labs with its access to telephone switching equipment, Shannon built a relay-based machine that learned how to work its way through a two-dimensional, 5x5 cell maze in 1949. Shannon viewed this as an analogue of the way that organisms learn things about their natural environment. There is a random element to searching it, a memory element to benefit from the search outcome, and a reward element that reinforces learning when the global outcome is favorable to the organism. Soon afterward, Shannon wrote a mathematical analysis of the game of chess, published in 1950. Like with the maze, he broke down game play into the necessary elements for reinforcement learning. Associated with each board configuration a move will be made from, there is a numerical score. To decide what move to make, a player wants to maximize their own position's score after the move and to minimize their opponent's score (a minimax view). Since there are about 32 possible moves at each of the early stages of the game, and about 40 moves and responses in each game, then there are about 32 80 {\displaystyle 32^{80}} or about 10 120 {\displaystyle 10^{120}} possible games - an impossibly large set to evaluate completely. Therefore, there must be a way to limit the number of moves to look ahead for to find the best one. Reducing the game to these few key elements provided a way to think about human intelligence in general. Shannon became part of a wider group using computing machines to mimic aspects of human intelligence that grew into the general idea of artificial intelligence. (Other members of this group were John McCarthy, Herbert Simon, Allen Newell, Alan Kotok, Alex Bernstein and Richard Greenblatt.) The paradigm that evolved was that there was a quantification of the position on the board into a score, an evaluation method to find favorable outcomes (minimax, later alpha-beta pruning), and a strategy to manage the combinatorial explosion of the look-ahead possibilities. By the early 1960s, there were computer programs that played chess at a rudimentary level. They used very simple evaluation functions for each position and tried to search as far forward as was practical given the time constraints and available compute power. Naturally, programmers optimized their code to use the available computing resources. This led to a major philosophical divide among chess programs: those that tried to evaluate as many positions as possible, and those that tried to evaluate the most promising move sequences as deeply as possible. CHAOS was firmly in the camp believing only the most promising moves should be evaluated in depth. Said Swartz, "The 'brute force people' ... look at every (possible move) no matter what garbage it is. Most moves are just terrible, terrible moves, and most computing time is being spent on pure garbage." The program spent more time evaluating each board position in the expectation that it would find the most promising lines of play to explore in depth. In 1983, the then-fastest chess program (Belle) evaluated 110,000 positions per second, and typical programs 1000–50,000 per second, whereas CHAOS evaluated about 50-100 per second. === Machine learning and strategies to manage search === From about 1949 onward, Arthur Samuel began work for IBM on machine learning, culminating in a checkers-playing program in 1952 and publications on the topic. Concurrently, Christopher Strachey created Checkers, a program to play the board game of checkers in 1951, but it had no capacity to learn from its play. Checkers was chosen by both authors because it was simpler than chess yet contained the basic characteristics of an intellectual activity, and, in Samuel's view, was a test-bed in which heuristic procedures and learning processes could be evaluated quickly. Checker playing programs introduced the notion of the game tree and evaluating play to various depths to choose the best move. The complexity of chess, however, promoted it to the status of an analogue for human intelligence, and it attracted computer scientists' attention, who referred to it as research into artificial intelligence (AI). Like checkers, it required a numerical assessment of each arrangement of chess pieces on a board. It also required looking ahead to future moves to decide how to play the present position. Due to the enormous number of possible moves, there had to be a way to confine the look-ahead search to the most promising lines of play. From these factors, the notion of minimax score evaluation developed and, later, alpha-beta tree pruning to abandon looking at positions worse than any that have already been examined. === Chess search strategies === The AI community viewed artificial intelligence as comprising two parts: a way to symbolically quantify the knowledge in hand (a chess board position), and a set of heuristics to limit look-ahead to the consequences of a move. The early chess playing programs attempted to look forward as far as possible, perhaps to 3 moves ahead by each player, and to choose the best outcome. This led to the horizon effect, whereby a key move 4 or more moves ahead would be unexamined and therefore missed. Consequently, the programs were quite weak and heuristics to manage the search became important in their development. CHAOS used a selective search strategy with iterative widening. As chess programs evolved, they incorporated books of opening lines of play from historic sources. Nowadays, book moves are catalogued in machine-readable form, but originally programmers had to type them in. CHAOS had an extensive book for its time of around 10,000 moves that O'Keefe helped to develop. A problem with play from an opening book is the behavior of the program when the play leaves the book: the positional advantage may be so subtle that the evaluation scheme may be unable to understand it, leading to very wide and shallow searches to establish a line of play. The horizon effect again plagues move selection after leaving the book. CHAOS mitigated these problems by only using book lines that it could understand, and by relying on cached analyses of continuations out of the book made while the opponent's clock was running. == Game Play History == CHAOS played in twelve ACM computer chess tournaments and four World Computer Chess Championships (WCCC). Its debut was the ACM computer chess tournament in 1973, taking 2nd place. In 1974, it again won 2nd place in the WCCC, defeating the tournament favorite Chess 4.0 but losing to Kaissa. CHAOS was close to winning the 1980 WCCC, but lost to Belle in a playoff. The 1985 ACM computer chess tournament was CHAOS' last competition. One of CHAOS' notable victories was over Chess 4.0 at the 1974 WCCC tournament. Chess 4.0 was unbeaten by any other program up until then. Playing as white, CHAOS made a knight sacrifice (16 Nd4-e6!!) that traded material for open lines of attack and eventually won the game. CHAOS’ authors thought the move was due to a
Best AI Logo Makers in 2026
Looking for the best AI logo maker? An AI logo maker is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI logo maker slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.