MobileNet is a family of convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures designed for image classification, object detection, and other computer vision tasks. They are designed for small size, low latency, and low power consumption, making them suitable for on-device inference and edge computing on resource-constrained devices like mobile phones and embedded systems. They were originally designed to be run efficiently on mobile devices with TensorFlow Lite. The need for efficient deep learning models on mobile devices led researchers at Google to develop MobileNet. As of June 2025, the family has five versions, each improving upon the previous one in terms of performance and efficiency. == Features == === V1 === MobileNetV1 was published in April 2017. Its main architectural innovation was incorporation of depthwise separable convolutions. It was first developed by Laurent Sifre during an internship at Google Brain in 2013 as an architectural variation on AlexNet to improve convergence speed and model size. The depthwise separable convolution decomposes a single standard convolution into two convolutions: a depthwise convolution that filters each input channel independently and a pointwise convolution ( 1 × 1 {\displaystyle 1\times 1} convolution) that combines the outputs of the depthwise convolution. This factorization significantly reduces computational cost. The MobileNetV1 has two hyperparameters: a width multiplier α {\displaystyle \alpha } that controls the number of channels in each layer. Smaller values of α {\displaystyle \alpha } lead to smaller and faster models, but at the cost of reduced accuracy, and a resolution multiplier ρ {\displaystyle \rho } , which controls the input resolution of the images. Lower resolutions result in faster processing but potentially lower accuracy. === V2 === MobileNetV2 was published in March 2019. It uses inverted residual layers and linear bottlenecks. Inverted residuals modify the traditional residual block structure. Instead of compressing the input channels before the depthwise convolution, they expand them. This expansion is followed by a 1 × 1 {\displaystyle 1\times 1} depthwise convolution and then a 1 × 1 {\displaystyle 1\times 1} projection layer that reduces the number of channels back down. This inverted structure helps to maintain representational capacity by allowing the depthwise convolution to operate on a higher-dimensional feature space, thus preserving more information flow during the convolutional process. Linear bottlenecks removes the typical ReLU activation function in the projection layers. This was rationalized by arguing that that nonlinear activation loses information in lower-dimensional spaces, which is problematic when the number of channels is already small. === V3 === MobileNetV3 was published in 2019. The publication included MobileNetV3-Small, MobileNetV3-Large, and MobileNetEdgeTPU (optimized for Pixel 4). They were found by a form of neural architecture search (NAS) that takes mobile latency into account, to achieve good trade-off between accuracy and latency. It used piecewise-linear approximations of swish and sigmoid activation functions (which they called "h-swish" and "h-sigmoid"), squeeze-and-excitation modules, and the inverted bottlenecks of MobileNetV2. === V4 === MobileNetV4 was published in September 2024. The publication included a large number of architectures found by NAS. Inspired by Vision Transformers, the V4 series included multi-query attention. It also unified both inverted residual and inverted bottleneck from the V3 series with the "universal inverted bottleneck", which includes these two as special cases. === V5 === MobileNetV5's architecture was published shortly after the release of Gemma 3n in June 2025. While the announcement stated a technical report on MobileNetV5 would be available soon, this has not yet materialised. The network is 10 times larger than the largest V4 variant.
View model
A view model or viewpoints framework in systems engineering, software engineering, and enterprise engineering is a framework which defines a coherent set of views to be used in the construction of a system architecture, software architecture, or enterprise architecture. A view is a representation of the whole system from the perspective of a related set of concerns. Since the early 1990s there have been a number of efforts to prescribe approaches for describing and analyzing system architectures. A result of these efforts have been to define a set of views (or viewpoints). They are sometimes referred to as architecture frameworks or enterprise architecture frameworks, but are usually called "view models". Usually a view is a work product that presents specific architecture data for a given system. However, the same term is sometimes used to refer to a view definition, including the particular viewpoint and the corresponding guidance that defines each concrete view. The term view model is related to view definitions. == Overview == The purpose of views and viewpoints is to enable humans to comprehend very complex systems, to organize the elements of the problem and the solution around domains of expertise and to separate concerns. In the engineering of physically intensive systems, viewpoints often correspond to capabilities and responsibilities within the engineering organization. Most complex system specifications are so extensive that no single individual can fully comprehend all aspects of the specifications. Furthermore, we all have different interests in a given system and different reasons for examining the system's specifications. A business executive will ask different questions of a system make-up than would a system implementer. The concept of viewpoints framework, therefore, is to provide separate viewpoints into the specification of a given complex system in order to facilitate communication with the stakeholders. Each viewpoint satisfies an audience with interest in a particular set of aspects of the system. Each viewpoint may use a specific viewpoint language that optimizes the vocabulary and presentation for the audience of that viewpoint. Viewpoint modeling has become an effective approach for dealing with the inherent complexity of large distributed systems. Architecture description practices, as described in IEEE Std 1471-2000, utilize multiple views to address several areas of concerns, each one focusing on a specific aspect of the system. Examples of architecture frameworks using multiple views include Kruchten's "4+1" view model, the Zachman Framework, TOGAF, DoDAF, and RM-ODP. == History == In the 1970s, methods began to appear in software engineering for modeling with multiple views. Douglas T. Ross and K.E. Schoman in 1977 introduce the constructs context, viewpoint, and vantage point to organize the modeling process in systems requirements definition. According to Ross and Schoman, a viewpoint "makes clear what aspects are considered relevant to achieving ... the overall purpose [of the model]" and determines How do we look at [a subject being modelled]? As examples of viewpoints, the paper offers: Technical, Operational and Economic viewpoints. In 1992, Anthony Finkelstein and others published a very important paper on viewpoints. In that work: "A viewpoint can be thought of as a combination of the idea of an “actor”, “knowledge source”, “role” or “agent” in the development process and the idea of a “view” or “perspective” which an actor maintains." An important idea in this paper was to distinguish "a representation style, the scheme and notation by which the viewpoint expresses what it can see" and "a specification, the statements expressed in the viewpoint's style describing particular domains". Subsequent work, such as IEEE 1471, preserved this distinction by utilizing two separate terms: viewpoint and view, respectively. Since the early 1990s there have been a number of efforts to codify approaches for describing and analyzing system architectures. These are often termed architecture frameworks or sometimes viewpoint sets. Many of these have been funded by the United States Department of Defense, but some have sprung from international or national efforts in ISO or the IEEE. Among these, the IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems (IEEE Std 1471-2000) established useful definitions of view, viewpoint, stakeholder and concern and guidelines for documenting a system architecture through the use of multiple views by applying viewpoints to address stakeholder concerns. The advantage of multiple views is that hidden requirements and stakeholder disagreements can be discovered more readily. However, studies show that in practice, the added complexity of reconciling multiple views can undermine this advantage. IEEE 1471 (now ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering — Architecture description) prescribes the contents of architecture descriptions and describes their creation and use under a number of scenarios, including precedented and unprecedented design, evolutionary design, and capture of design of existing systems. In all of these scenarios the overall process is the same: identify stakeholders, elicit concerns, identify a set of viewpoints to be used, and then apply these viewpoint specifications to develop the set of views relevant to the system of interest. Rather than define a particular set of viewpoints, the standard provides uniform mechanisms and requirements for architects and organizations to define their own viewpoints. In 1996 the ISO Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing (RM-ODP) was published to provide a useful framework for describing the architecture and design of large-scale distributed systems. == View model topics == === View === A view of a system is a representation of the system from the perspective of a viewpoint. This viewpoint on a system involves a perspective focusing on specific concerns regarding the system, which suppresses details to provide a simplified model having only those elements related to the concerns of the viewpoint. For example, a security viewpoint focuses on security concerns and a security viewpoint model contains those elements that are related to security from a more general model of a system. A view allows a user to examine a portion of a particular interest area. For example, an Information View may present all functions, organizations, technology, etc. that use a particular piece of information, while the Organizational View may present all functions, technology, and information of concern to a particular organization. In the Zachman Framework views comprise a group of work products whose development requires a particular analytical and technical expertise because they focus on either the “what,” “how,” “who,” “where,” “when,” or “why” of the enterprise. For example, Functional View work products answer the question “how is the mission carried out?” They are most easily developed by experts in functional decomposition using process and activity modeling. They show the enterprise from the point of view of functions. They also may show organizational and information components, but only as they relate to functions. === Viewpoints === In systems engineering, a viewpoint is a partitioning or restriction of concerns in a system. Adoption of a viewpoint is usable so that issues in those aspects can be addressed separately. A good selection of viewpoints also partitions the design of the system into specific areas of expertise. Viewpoints provide the conventions, rules, and languages for constructing, presenting and analysing views. In ISO/IEC 42010:2007 (IEEE-Std-1471-2000) a viewpoint is a specification for an individual view. A view is a representation of a whole system from the perspective of a viewpoint. A view may consist of one or more architectural models. Each such architectural model is developed using the methods established by its associated architectural system, as well as for the system as a whole. === Modeling perspectives === Modeling perspectives is a set of different ways to represent pre-selected aspects of a system. Each perspective has a different focus, conceptualization, dedication and visualization of what the model is representing. In information systems, the traditional way to divide modeling perspectives is to distinguish the structural, functional and behavioral/processual perspectives. This together with rule, object, communication and actor and role perspectives is one way of classifying modeling approaches === Viewpoint model === In any given viewpoint, it is possible to make a model of the system that contains only the objects that are visible from that viewpoint, but also captures all of the objects, relationships and constraints that are present in the system and relevant to that viewpoint. Such a model is said to be a viewpoint model, or a view of the
Amazon Polly
Amazon Polly is a cloud service by Amazon Web Services, a subsidiary of Amazon.com, that converts text into spoken audio. It allows developers to create speech-enabled applications and products. It was launched in November 2016 and (as of December 2024) includes 100+ voices across 41 language variants, some of which are Neural Text-to-Speech voices of higher quality. Users include Duolingo, a language education platform.
Law and Corpus Linguistics
Law and corpus linguistics (LCL) is an academic sub-discipline that uses large databases of examples of language usage equipped with tools designed by linguists called corpora to better get at the meaning of words and phrases in legal texts (statutes, constitutions, contracts, etc.). Thus, LCL is the application of corpus linguistic tools, theories, and methodologies to issues of legal interpretation in much the same way law and economics is the application of economic tools, theories, and methodologies to various legal issues. == History == A 2005 law review article by Lawrence Solan noted in passing that corpus linguistics had potential for its application to interpreting legal texts. But the first systematic exploration and advocacy of applying the tools and methodologies of corpus linguistics to legal interpretive questions of law and corpus linguistics came in the fall of 2010, when the BYU Law Review published a note by Stephen Mouritsen, entitled The Dictionary is Not a Fortress: Definitional Fallacies and a Corpus-Based Approach to Plain Meaning. The note argued that dictionaries are the primary linguistic tool used by judges to determine the plain or ordinary meaning of words and phrases, and highlighted the deficiencies of such an approach. In its stead, the note proposed using corpus linguistics. And the note would be later cited by Adam Liptak in a New York Times article on statutory construction. Law and corpus linguistics (LCL) gained greater legitimacy in July 2011 with the first judicial opinion in American history utilizing corpus linguistics to determine the meaning of a legal text: In re the Adoption of Baby E.Z. In a concurrence in part and in the judgment, Justice Thomas Lee wrote to put forth an alternative ground for the majority's holding—interpreting the phrase "custody determination" by using corpus linguistics. Justice Lee looked at 500 randomized sample sentences from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and found that the most common sense of "custody" was in the context of divorce rather than adoption. Further, he found that "custody" is ten times more likely to co-occur (or collocate) with "divorce" than with "adoption". From that evidence Justice Lee concluded that he "would find that the custody proceedings covered by the Act are limited to proceedings resulting in the modifiable custody orders of a divorce", rather than the broader range of custody proceedings. Other jurisprudence and scholarship would follow. In a 2015 concurrence in State v. Rasabout, Justice Lee used a COCA search to determine that "discharge" when used with a firearm (or one of its synonyms) overwhelmingly referred to a single shot rather than emptying the entire magazine of the weapon. And in 2016, four of the five justices joined a footnote in a majority opinion by Justice Lee commending a party for using corpus linguistics in its briefing even though the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the related question. Finally, in 2016 the Michigan Supreme Court became the first court to use a linguist-designed corpus in a majority opinion (COCA), with both the majority and the dissent turning to COCA to determine the meaning of the word "information". In 2020, courts desiring to bolster the legal theory of original intent have sought the opportunity to undertake analyses of statutes utilizing corpus linguistics. In a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Jones v. Becerra (No. 20-56174), a case involving the Second Amendment and the constitutionality of a California statute which bans the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21, a Ninth Circuit panel requested that the parties address three questions: 1) “What is the original public meaning of the Second Amendment phrases: ‘A well regulated Militia’; ‘the right of the people’; and ‘shall not be infringed’? 2) How does the tool of corpus linguistics help inform the determination of the original public meaning of those Second Amendment phrases?” 3) How do the data yielded from corpus linguistics assist in the interpretation of the constitutionality of age-based restrictions under the Second Amendment? As to scholarship, in 2012, Mouritsen followed up his original work with an article in the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, where he further refined and promoted the use of corpus-based methods for determining questions of legal ambiguity. Additionally, in 2016 two essays and an article on law and corpus linguistics were published. The Yale Law Journal Forum published Corpus Linguistics & Original Public Meaning: A New Tool to Make Originalism More Empirical. Written by Justice Lee and two co-authors, the essay urged originalists to turn to corpus linguistics to improve the rigor and accuracy of originalist scholarship. And in response, the Forum published an essay by Lawrence Solan (a Brooklyn Law professor with a PhD in linguistics), Can Corpus Linguistics Help Make Originalism Scientific? The Boston University Public Interest Law Journal published The Merciful Corpus: The Rule of Lenity, Ambiguity and Corpus Linguistics by Daniel Ortner. In the article Ortner applied corpus linguistics to determining whether sufficient ambiguity exists to trigger the rule of lenity in five Supreme Court cases. Looking forward, in 2017 two more articles are slated for publication. Lee Strang focuses on corpus linguistics and originalism in the U.C. Davis Law Review, and Lawrence Solan and Tammy Gales explore corpus linguistics in the context of finding ordinary meaning in statutory interpretation in the International Journal of Legal Discourse. Lawyers and journalists have also taken notice of corpus linguistics at it relates to the law. In 2010, Neal Goldfarb filed the first known brief in the Supreme Court using corpus linguistics (COCA) to determine whether the ordinary meaning of "personal" referred to corporations in the case FCC v. AT&T. The amicus brief looked at the top collocates (words that co-occur) of "personal" in COHA as well as BYU's Time Magazine Corpus. And writing for The Atlantic, Ben Zimmer took note of this new trend, referring to corpus linguistics in the courts as "Like Lexis on Steroids". On the academic front, in 2013 BYU Law School started the first class on law and corpus linguistics, co-taught by Mouritsen, Lee, and (now Dean) Gordon Smith. The class is currently in its fourth year. And in February 2016, BYU Law School hosted the inaugural conference on LCL, with over two dozen legal and linguistic scholars from around the country discussing and debating the next steps forward for the growing academic movement. The conference has been held regularly in subsequent years. At the 2016 conference BYU Law School announced its plans and progress on the Corpus of Founding Era American English (COFEA), a corpus that covers 1760–1799 and contains more than 120 million words have been collected from founding era letters, diaries, newspapers, non-fiction books, fiction, sermons, speeches, debates, legal cases, and other legal materials.
Google matrix
A Google matrix is a particular stochastic matrix that is used by Google's PageRank algorithm. The matrix represents a graph with edges representing links between pages. The PageRank of each page can then be generated iteratively from the Google matrix using the power method. However, in order for the power method to converge, the matrix must be stochastic, irreducible and aperiodic. == Adjacency matrix A and Markov matrix S == In order to generate the Google matrix G, we must first generate an adjacency matrix A which represents the relations between pages or nodes. Assuming there are N pages, we can fill out A by doing the following: A matrix element A i , j {\displaystyle A_{i,j}} is filled with 1 if node j {\displaystyle j} has a link to node i {\displaystyle i} , and 0 otherwise; this is the adjacency matrix of links. A related matrix S corresponding to the transitions in a Markov chain of given network is constructed from A by dividing the elements of column "j" by a number of k j = Σ i = 1 N A i , j {\displaystyle k_{j}=\Sigma _{i=1}^{N}A_{i,j}} where k j {\displaystyle k_{j}} is the total number of outgoing links from node j to all other nodes. The columns having zero matrix elements, corresponding to dangling nodes, are replaced by a constant value 1/N. Such a procedure adds a link from every sink, dangling state a {\displaystyle a} to every other node. Now by the construction the sum of all elements in any column of matrix S is equal to unity. In this way the matrix S is mathematically well defined and it belongs to the class of Markov chains and the class of Perron-Frobenius operators. That makes S suitable for the PageRank algorithm. == Construction of Google matrix G == Then the final Google matrix G can be expressed via S as: G i j = α S i j + ( 1 − α ) 1 N ( 1 ) {\displaystyle G_{ij}=\alpha S_{ij}+(1-\alpha ){\frac {1}{N}}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(1)} By the construction the sum of all non-negative elements inside each matrix column is equal to unity. The numerical coefficient α {\displaystyle \alpha } is known as a damping factor. Usually S is a sparse matrix and for modern directed networks it has only about ten nonzero elements in a line or column, thus only about 10N multiplications are needed to multiply a vector by matrix G. == Examples of Google matrix == An example of the matrix S {\displaystyle S} construction via Eq.(1) within a simple network is given in the article CheiRank. For the actual matrix, Google uses a damping factor α {\displaystyle \alpha } around 0.85. The term ( 1 − α ) {\displaystyle (1-\alpha )} gives a surfer probability to jump randomly on any page. The matrix G {\displaystyle G} belongs to the class of Perron-Frobenius operators of Markov chains. The examples of Google matrix structure are shown in Fig.1 for Wikipedia articles hyperlink network in 2009 at small scale and in Fig.2 for University of Cambridge network in 2006 at large scale. == Spectrum and eigenstates of G matrix == For 0 < α < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\alpha <1} there is only one maximal eigenvalue λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} with the corresponding right eigenvector which has non-negative elements P i {\displaystyle P_{i}} which can be viewed as stationary probability distribution. These probabilities ordered by their decreasing values give the PageRank vector P i {\displaystyle P_{i}} with the PageRank K i {\displaystyle K_{i}} used by Google search to rank webpages. Usually one has for the World Wide Web that P ∝ 1 / K β {\displaystyle P\propto 1/K^{\beta }} with β ≈ 0.9 {\displaystyle \beta \approx 0.9} . The number of nodes with a given PageRank value scales as N P ∝ 1 / P ν {\displaystyle N_{P}\propto 1/P^{\nu }} with the exponent ν = 1 + 1 / β ≈ 2.1 {\displaystyle \nu =1+1/\beta \approx 2.1} . The left eigenvector at λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} has constant matrix elements. With 0 < α {\displaystyle 0<\alpha } all eigenvalues move as λ i → α λ i {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}\rightarrow \alpha \lambda _{i}} except the maximal eigenvalue λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} , which remains unchanged. The PageRank vector varies with α {\displaystyle \alpha } but other eigenvectors with λ i < 1 {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}<1} remain unchanged due to their orthogonality to the constant left vector at λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} . The gap between λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} and other eigenvalue being 1 − α ≈ 0.15 {\displaystyle 1-\alpha \approx 0.15} gives a rapid convergence of a random initial vector to the PageRank approximately after 50 multiplications on G {\displaystyle G} matrix. At α = 1 {\displaystyle \alpha =1} the matrix G {\displaystyle G} has generally many degenerate eigenvalues λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} (see e.g. [6]). Examples of the eigenvalue spectrum of the Google matrix of various directed networks is shown in Fig.3 from and Fig.4 from. The Google matrix can be also constructed for the Ulam networks generated by the Ulam method [8] for dynamical maps. The spectral properties of such matrices are discussed in [9,10,11,12,13,15]. In a number of cases the spectrum is described by the fractal Weyl law [10,12]. The Google matrix can be constructed also for other directed networks, e.g. for the procedure call network of the Linux Kernel software introduced in [15]. In this case the spectrum of λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is described by the fractal Weyl law with the fractal dimension d ≈ 1.3 {\displaystyle d\approx 1.3} (see Fig.5 from ). Numerical analysis shows that the eigenstates of matrix G {\displaystyle G} are localized (see Fig.6 from ). Arnoldi iteration method allows to compute many eigenvalues and eigenvectors for matrices of rather large size [13]. Other examples of G {\displaystyle G} matrix include the Google matrix of brain [17] and business process management [18], see also. Applications of Google matrix analysis to DNA sequences is described in [20]. Such a Google matrix approach allows also to analyze entanglement of cultures via ranking of multilingual Wikipedia articles abouts persons [21] == Historical notes == The Google matrix with damping factor was described by Sergey Brin and Larry Page in 1998 [22], see also articles on PageRank history [23], [24].
Document classification
Document classification or document categorization is a problem in library science, information science and computer science. The task is to assign a document to one or more classes or categories. This may be done "manually" (or "intellectually") or algorithmically. The intellectual classification of documents has mostly been the province of library science, while the algorithmic classification of documents is mainly in information science and computer science. The problems are overlapping, however, and there is therefore interdisciplinary research on document classification. The documents to be classified may be texts, images, music, etc. Each kind of document possesses its special classification problems. When not otherwise specified, text classification is implied. Documents may be classified according to their subjects or according to other attributes (such as document type, author, printing year etc.). In the rest of this article only subject classification is considered. There are two main philosophies of subject classification of documents: the content-based approach and the request-based approach. == "Content-based" versus "request-based" classification == Content-based classification is classification in which the weight given to particular subjects in a document determines the class to which the document is assigned. It is, for example, a common rule for classification in libraries, that at least 20% of the content of a book should be about the class to which the book is assigned. In automatic classification it could be the number of times given words appears in a document. Request-oriented classification (or -indexing) is classification in which the anticipated request from users is influencing how documents are being classified. The classifier asks themself: “Under which descriptors should this entity be found?” and “think of all the possible queries and decide for which ones the entity at hand is relevant” (Soergel, 1985, p. 230). Request-oriented classification may be classification that is targeted towards a particular audience or user group. For example, a library or a database for feminist studies may classify/index documents differently when compared to a historical library. It is probably better, however, to understand request-oriented classification as policy-based classification: The classification is done according to some ideals and reflects the purpose of the library or database doing the classification. In this way it is not necessarily a kind of classification or indexing based on user studies. Only if empirical data about use or users are applied should request-oriented classification be regarded as a user-based approach. == Classification versus indexing == Sometimes a distinction is made between assigning documents to classes ("classification") versus assigning subjects to documents ("subject indexing") but as Frederick Wilfrid Lancaster has argued, this distinction is not fruitful. "These terminological distinctions,” he writes, “are quite meaningless and only serve to cause confusion” (Lancaster, 2003, p. 21). The view that this distinction is purely superficial is also supported by the fact that a classification system may be transformed into a thesaurus and vice versa (cf., Aitchison, 1986, 2004; Broughton, 2008; Riesthuis & Bliedung, 1991). Therefore, assigning a subject term to a document in an index is equivalent to assigning that document to the class of documents indexed by that term (all documents indexed or classified as X belong to the same class of documents). == Automatic document classification (ADC) == Automatic document classification tasks can be divided into three sorts: supervised document classification where some external mechanism (such as human feedback) provides information on the correct classification for documents, unsupervised document classification (also known as document clustering), where the classification must be done entirely without reference to external information, and semi-supervised document classification, where parts of the documents are labeled by the external mechanism. There are several software products under various license models available. === Techniques === Automatic document classification techniques include: Artificial neural network Concept Mining Decision trees such as ID3 or C4.5 Expectation maximization (EM) Instantaneously trained neural networks Latent semantic indexing Multiple-instance learning Naive Bayes classifier Natural language processing approaches Rough set-based classifier Soft set-based classifier Support vector machines (SVM) K-nearest neighbour algorithms tf–idf == Applications == Classification techniques have been applied to spam filtering, a process which tries to discern E-mail spam messages from legitimate emails email routing, sending an email sent to a general address to a specific address or mailbox depending on topic language identification, automatically determining the language of a text genre classification, automatically determining the genre of a text readability assessment, automatically determining the degree of readability of a text, either to find suitable materials for different age groups or reader types or as part of a larger text simplification system sentiment analysis, determining the attitude of a speaker or a writer with respect to some topic or the overall contextual polarity of a document. health-related classification using social media in public health surveillance article triage, selecting articles that are relevant for manual literature curation, for example as is being done as the first step to generate manually curated annotation databases in biology
Lise Getoor
Lise Getoor is an American computer scientist who is a distinguished professor and Baskin Endowed chair in the Computer Science and Engineering department, at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and an adjunct professor in the Computer Science Department at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her primary research interests are in machine learning and reasoning with uncertainty, applied to graphs and structured data. She also works in data integration, social network analysis and visual analytics. She has edited a book on Statistical relational learning that is a main reference in this domain. She has published many highly cited papers in academic journals and conference proceedings. She has also served as action editor for the Machine Learning Journal, JAIR associate editor, and TKDD associate editor. She received her Ph.D. from Stanford University, her M.S. from UC Berkeley, and her B.S. from UC Santa Barbara. Prior to joining University of California, Santa Cruz, she was a professor at the University of Maryland, College Park until November 2013. == Recognition == Getoor has multiple best paper awards, an NSF Career Award, and is an Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Fellow. In 2019, she was elected as an ACM Fellow "for contributions to machine learning, reasoning under uncertainty, and responsible data science", was selected as a Distinguished Alumna of the UC Santa Barbara Computer Science Department, was awarded the UCSC WiSE Chancellor's Achievement Award for Diversity, and was selected to give the UC Santa Cruz Faculty Research Lecture 2018-19, one of the highest recognitions given to UC faculty. She was named an IEEE Fellow in 2021, "for contributions to machine learning and reasoning under uncertainty". In October 2022, Getoor was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). In 2024, she was named a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAA&S). Also in 2024, she received the ACM SIGKDD Innovation Award recognizing individuals with outstanding technical innovations in the field of Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining that have had a lasting impact in advancing the theory and practice of the field. == Personal life == Getoor's father was mathematician Ronald Getoor (1929–2017).