eBay has released Krylov, their new artificial intelligence (AI) platform that allows the e-commerce giant to reach new capabilities. Some of these are improved language translation services and searching with images.
According to eBay’s Sanjeev Katariya, the vice president and chief architect of the eBay AI and platforms, and Ashok Ramani, director of product management, computer vision, natural and language processing, Krylov has changed the inner workings of eBay and the way users interact with the site.
“With computer vision powered by eBay’s modern AI platform, the technology helps you find items based on the click of your camera or an image. Users can go onto the eBay app and take a photo of what they are looking for and within milliseconds, the platform surfaces items that match the image,” Katariya and Ramani wrote in December.
“The user has not only activated computer vision technology, but they have also tapped into some advanced AI capabilities, including deep learning, distributed training and inferencing. The computer vision algorithm sifts through more than half a billion images and eBay’s 1.4 billion listings to find and show you the most relevant listings that are visually similar.”
Krylov is named after the mathematician Nicolai Krylov, and the project evolved over time, especially after eBay was at a point in which the site had a lot of data.
According to Katariya and Ramani, Krylov is utilized by data scientists at eBay to run thousands of model training experiments per month. Those revolve around different AI use cases including computer vision, natural language processing, merchandising recommendations, buyer personalization, seller price guidance, risk, trust, shipping estimates and more.
Prior to the development of Krylov, data scientists at eBay would build models to test new features for the site. Not only would these take weeks and months to finish, but they also wasted time, money, and energy on models that needed to be developed fast.
The new AI platform allows eBay’s scientists to automate model training and use the models individually or a common inference as a platform, and this only takes days instead of months.
Krylov is being used to improve eBay’s recommendation system, and it has enabled new image search features. These new features change the way a user searches the site. Users are now able to upload a photo of what they want, and the site will show them similar items.
“Krylov allows our AI teams to maximize the power of the vast repositories of data, both batch and real time, that eBay has. If you think of data as the fuel for artificial intelligence and machine learning, Krylov is the sophisticated vehicle being powered by that fuel,” Katariya and Ramani wrote.
The AI platform has been an important part of eBay’s machine translation technology, which is responsible for enabling cross-border trade. This makes up 60% of eBay’s international revenue.
Because of its many benefits and possibilities, various different departments worked on Krylov. Some worked on engineering in ads, computer vision, NLP, risk, trust and marketing.
“We had so many engineers and scientists across the company who needed help creating models and pushing out their models to production. We needed a complete closed loop on life cycle management of machine learning algorithms that was obvious. We needed a unified AI platform to really bring data scientists and engineers, modes and management experimentation all together,” Katariya said.
“If I look back on how we have progressed, I’m super proud of the collaboration, of the transparency, of the internal open source and how the training and education has gone above and beyond to build a really powerful platform that is global and deals with the scale of eBay,” he said.
“Krylov took a while to come of age but the objective was clear, that it was to ensure that our engineers and scientists across the globe, no matter where they were, were capable of accessing the right data at the right time, be it real time or batch-orientated data lakes or data warehouses or transactional data in a programmatic fashion.”
Akilesh Bapu, Founder & CEO of DeepScribe – Interview Series
Akilesh Bapu is the Founder & CEO of DeepScribe, which uses natural language processing (NLP) and advanced deep learning to generate accurate, compliant, and secure notes of doctor-patient conversations.
What was it that introduced and attracted you to AI and natural language processing?
If I remember correctly, Jarvis from “Iron Man” was the first thing that really attracted me to the world of natural language processing and AI. Particularly, I found it fascinating how much faster a human was able to not only go through tasks but also go into an incredible level of depth into certain tasks and unveil certain information that they wouldn’t have even known about if it weren’t for this AI.
It was this concept of “AI by itself won’t be as good as humans at most tasks but put a human and AI together and that combination will dominate.” Natural language processing is the most efficient way for this human/AI combination to happen.
From then on, I was obsessed with Siri, Google Now, Alexa, and the others. While they didn’t work as seamlessly as Jarvis, I so badly wanted to make them work as Jarvis did. Particularly, what became apparent was, commands such as “Alexa do this,” “Alexa do that,” were pretty easy and accurate to do with the current state of technology. But when it comes to something like Jarvis, where it can actually learn and understand, filter, and pick up on important topics during another conversational exchange—that hadn’t really been done before. This actually directly relates to one of my core motivations in founding DeepScribe. While we are solving the issue of documentation for physicians, we’re attempting a whole new wave of intelligence while doing it: ambient intelligence. AI that can dig through your day-to-day utterances, find useful information, and use that information to help you out.
You previously did some research using deep learning and NLP at UC Berkeley College of Engineering. What was your research on?
Back at the Berkeley AI Research Lab, I was working on a gene ontology annotator project where we were summarizing PubMed articles with specific output parameters.
The high-level overview: Take a task like the CNN news article summarization. In that task you’re taking news articles and summarizing them into roughly a few sentences. In your favor you have data and the ability to train these models on over a million articles. However, the problem space is enormous since you have limited structure to the summaries. In addition, there is hardly any structure to the actual articles. While there have been quite a few improvements since 2.5 years ago when I was working on this project, this is still an unsolved problem.
In our research project, however, we were developing structured summaries of articles. A structured summary in this case is similar to a typical summary except we know the exact structure of the output summary. This is helpful since it dramatically reduces the output options for our machine learning model—the challenge was that there was not enough annotated training to run a data-hungry deep learning model and get usable results.
The core of the work I did on this project was to leverage the knowledge we have around the input data and develop an ensemble of shallow ML models to support it—a technique we invented called the 2-step annotator. The 2-step annotator benchmarked at nearly 20x the accuracy as the previous best (54 percent vs 3.6 percent).
While side by side, this project and DeepScribe may sound entirely different, they were highly similar in how they used the 2-step annotation method to vastly improve results on a limited dataset.
What was the inspiration behind launching DeepScribe?
It all started with my father, who was a medical oncologist. Before electronic health record systems took over health care, physicians would jot down things on paper and spend very little time on notes. However, once EHRs started becoming popular as part of the HITECH Act of 2009, I started noticing that my dad spent more and more time at the computer. He’d start coming home later. On the weekends, he’d be sitting on the couch dictating notes. Simple things like him picking me up from school or basketball practice became a thing of the past as he’d be spending most of his evening hours catching up on documentation.
As a nerdy kid growing up, I would try to find solutions for him by searching the web and having him try them out. Sadly, nothing worked well enough to save him from the long hours of documentation.
Fast forward several years to the summer of 2017—I’m a researcher working at the Berkeley AI Research Lab, working on projects in document summarization. One summer when I’m back at home, I notice that my dad is still spending copious amounts of time documenting. I ask, “What’s new in the world of documentation? Alexa is everywhere, Google Assistant is so good now. Tell me, what’s the latest in the medical space?” And his answer was, “Nothing has changed.” I thought that it was just him but when I went and surveyed several of his colleagues, it was the same issue: not what the latest is in cancer treatment or the novel problems their patients were having—it was documentation. “How can I get rid of documentation? How can I save time on documentation? It’s taking so much of my time.”
I also noticed several companies that had emerged to try to solve documentation. However, either they were too expensive (thousands of dollars per month) or they were too minimal in terms of technology. The physicians at that time had very few options. That was when the opportunity opened up that if we could create an artificially intelligent medical scribe, a technology that could follow physicians’ patient visits and summarize them, and offer it at a cost that could make it accessible for everyone, it could truly bring the joy of care back to medicine.
You were only 22 years old when you launched DeepScribe. Can you describe your journey as an entrepreneur?
At Berkeley, I continued to delve into the world of entrepreneurship as much as possible, primarily with their wide array of classes. My favorites were:
- The Newton Lecture Series—people like Jessica Mah from InDinero or Diane Greene from VMWare who were Cal alums gave highly relatable talks about their time at Berkeley and how they started their own companies
- Challenge Lab—I actually met my co-founder Matt Ko through this class. We were placed in groups and went through a semester-long journey of creating a product and being mentored on what it takes during the early stages to get an idea going.
- Lean Launchpad—By far my favorite of the three; this was a grueling and rigorous process where we were guided by Steve Blank (acclaimed billionaire and the man behind the lean startup movement) to take an idea, validate it through 100 customer interviews, build a financial model, and more. This was the type of class where we pitched our “startup” only to get stopped on slide 1 or 2 and get grilled. If that wasn’t hard enough, we were also expected to interview 10 customers a week. Our idea at the time was to create a patent search that would give similar results to an expensive prior art search, which meant we were pitching to 10 enterprise customers a week. It was great because it taught us to think fast on our feet and be extra resourceful.
DeepScribe started when an investor group called The House Fund was writing checks for students who would turn down their summer internships and spend their summer building their company. We had just shut down Delphi (the patent search engine) and Matt and I had been constantly talking about medical documentation and everything fell in place since it was the perfect time to give it a shot.
With DeepScribe, we were lucky to have just come fresh out of Lean Launchpad since one of the most important factors in building a product for physicians was to iterate and refine the product around customer feedback. A historical issue with the medical industry has been that software has rarely had physicians in the design loop, therefore resulting in software that wasn’t optimized for the end user.
Since DeepScribe was happening at the same time as my final year at Berkeley, it was a heavy balancing act. I’d show up to class in a suit so I could be on time for a customer demo right after. I’d use all the EE facilities and professors not for anything to do with class but 100 percent for DeepScribe. My meetings with my research mentor even turned into DeepScribe brainstorming sessions.
Looking back, if I had to change one thing about my journey, it would’ve been to put college on hold so I could spend 150 percent of my time on DeepScribe.
Can you describe for a medical professional what the advantages of using DeepScribe are versus the more traditional method of voice dictation or even taking notes?
Using DeepScribe is meant to be very similar to using an actual human scribe. As you talk naturally to your patient, DeepScribe will listen in and pick up on the medically relevant speech that usually goes in your notes and puts it in there for you, using the same medical language that you yourself use. We like to think of it as a new AI-powered member of your medical staff that you can train as you’d like to help with documentation in your electronic health record system as you’d like. It’s very different from using voice dictation service as it eliminates the entire step of having to go back and document. While typical dictation services turn 10 minutes of documentation into 7-8 minutes, DeepScribe turns it into a few seconds. Our physicians report anywhere from 1.5 to 3 hours of time saved per day depending on how many patients they see.
DeepScribe is device-agnostic, operable from an iPhone, Apple Watch, browser (for telemedicine), or hardware device.
What are some of the speech recognition or NLP challenges that DeepScribe may encounter due to complex medical terminology?
Contrary to popular opinion, complex medical terminology is actually the easiest part for DeepScribe to pick up. The trickiest part for DeepScribe is to pick up on unique contextual statements a patient may give a physician. The more they stray from a typical conversation, the more we see the AI stumble. But as we collect more conversational data, we see it improve on this dramatically every day.
What are the other machine learning technologies that are used with DeepScribe?
The large umbrellas of speech recognition and NLP tend to cover most of the machine learning we’re doing at DeepScribe.
Can you name some of the hospitals, nonprofits, or academic institutions that are using DeepScribe?
DeepScribe started out through a pilot program with the UC Berkeley Health Center. Hartford Healthcare, Texas Medical Center, and Cedar Valley Medical Specialists are a handful of the larger systems DeepScribe is working with.
However, the larger percentage of DeepScribe users are 50 private practices from Alaska to Florida. Our most popular specialties are primary care, orthopedics, gastroenterology, cardiology, psychiatry, and oncology, but we do support a handful of other specialties.
DeepScribe has recently launched a program to assist with COVID-19. Could you walk us through this program?
COVID-19 has hit our doctors hard. Practices are only seeing 30-40 percent of their patient load, scribe staffing is being cut, and providers are being forced to rapidly switch all their patients on to telemedicine. All this ends up leading to more clerical work for providers—we at DeepScribe firmly believe that in order for this pandemic to come to a halt, physicians must devote 100 percent of their attention and time to taking care of their patients.
To help aid this cause, we are proud to launch a free telemedicine solution to health care professionals fighting this pandemic. Our telemedicine solution is fully integrated with our AI-powered medical scribe solution, eliminating the need for clinical documentation for encounters made on our platform.
We’re also offering our scribe service for free during the pandemic. This means that any physician can get access to a scribe for free to handle their documentation. Our hopes are that by doing this, physicians will be able to focus more of their attention on their patients and spend less time thinking about documentation, leading to a faster halting of the COVID-19 outbreak.
Thank you for the great interview, I really enjoyed learning about DeepScribe and your entrepreneurial journey. Anyone who wishes to learn more should visit DeepScribe.
Stefano Pacifico, and David Heeger, Co-Founders of Epistemic AI – Interview Series
Epistemic AI employs state-of-the-art Natural Language Processing (NLP), machine learning and deep learning algorithms to map relations among a growing body of biomedical knowledge, from multiple public and private sources, including text documents and databases. Through a process of Knowledge Mapping, users’ work interactively with the platform to map and understand subsets of biomedical knowledge, which reveals concepts and relationships and that are otherwise missed with traditional search.
We interviewed both Co-Founders of Epistemic AI to discuss these latest advances.
Stefano Pacifico comes from 10+ years in applied AI and NLP development. Formerly at Bloomberg, where he spent 7 years, and was at Elemental Cognition before starting Epistemic.
David Heeger is a Silver Professor of data science and neuroscience at NYU, and has spent his career bridging computer science, AI and bioscience. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. As founders they bring together the expertise of building applied large-scale AI and NLP systems for understanding large collections of knowledge, with expertise in computational biology and biomedical science from years of research in the area.
What is it that introduced and attracted you to AI and Natural Language Processing (NLP)?
Stefano Pacifico: When I was in college in Rome, and AI was not popular at all (in fact it was very fringe), I asked my then advisor what specialization I should have taken among those available. He said: “If you want to make money, Software Engineering and Databases, but if you want to be weird but very advanced, then choose Artificial Intelligence”. I was sold at “weird”. I then started working on knowledge representation and reasoning to study how autonomous agents could play soccer or rescue people. Then two realizations made me fall in love with NLP: first, autonomous agents might have to communicate with natural language among themselves! Second, building formal knowledge bases by hand is hard, while natural language (in text) already provides the largest knowledge base of all. I know today these might seem obvious observations, but they were not as mainstream before.
What was the inspiration behind launching Epistemic AI?
Stefano Pacifico: I am going to make a bold claim. Nobody today has adequate tooling to understand and connect the knowledge present in large, ever-growing collections of documents and data. I had previously worked on that problem in the world of finance. Think of news, financial statements, pricing data, corporate actions, filings etc. I found that problem intoxicating. And of course, it’s a difficult problem; and an important one! When I met my co-founder, Dr. David Heeger, we spent quite a bit of time evaluating startup opportunities in the biomedical industry. When we realized the sheer volume of information generated in this field, it’s as if everything fell in its right place. Biomedical researchers struggle with information overload, while attempting to grapple with the vast and rapidly expanding base of biomedical knowledge, including documents (e.g., papers, patents, clinical trials) and databases (e.g., genes, proteins, pathways, drugs, diseases, medical terms). This is a major pain point for researchers and, with no appropriate solution available, they are forced to use basic search tools (PubMed and Google Scholar) and explore manually-curated databases. These tools are suitable for finding documents matching keywords (e.g., a single gene or a published journal paper), but not for acquiring comprehensive knowledge about a topic area or subdomain (e.g., COVID-19), or for interpreting the results of high throughput biology experiments, such as gene sequencing, protein expression, or screening chemical compounds. We started Epistemic AI with the idea to address this problem with a platform that allows them to iteratively:
- Shorten the time to gather information and build comprehensive knowledge maps
- Surface cross-disciplinary information that can be otherwise difficult to find (real discoveries often come from looking into the white space between disciplines);
- Identify causal hypotheses by finding paths and missing links in your knowledge map.
What are some of both the public and private sources that are used to map these relations?
Stefano Pacifico: At this time, we are ingesting all the publicly available sources that we can get our hands on, including Pubmed and clinicaltrials.gov. We ingest databases of genes, drugs, diseases and their interactions. We also include private data sources for select clients, but we are not at liberty to disclose any details yet.
What type of machine learning technologies are used for the knowledge mapping?
Stefano Pacifico: One of the deeply held beliefs at Epistemic AI is that zealotry is not helpful for building products. Building an architecture integrating several machine learning techniques was a decision made early on, and those range from Knowledge Representation to Transformer models, through graph embeddings, but include also simpler models like regressions and random forests. Each component is as simple as it needs to be, but no simpler. While we believe to have already built NLP components that are state-of-the-art for certain tasks, we don’t shy away from simpler baseline models when possible.
Can you name some of the companies, non-profits, or academic institutions that are using the Epistemic platform?
Stefano Pacifico: While I’d love to, we have not agreed with our users to do so. I can say that we had people signing up from very high-profile institutions in all three segments (companies, non-profits, and academic institutions). Additionally, we intend to keep the platform free for academic/non-profit purposes.
How does Epistemic assist researchers in Identifying central nervous system (CNS) and other disease-specific biomarkers?
Dr. David Heeger: Neuroscience is a very highly interdisciplinary field including molecular and cellular biology and genomics, but also psychology, chemistry, and principles of physics, engineering, and mathematics. It’s so broad that nobody can be an expert at all of it. Researchers at academic institutions and pharma/biotech companies are forced to specialize. But we know that the important insights are interdisciplinary, combining knowledge from the sub-specialties. The AI-powered software platform that we’re building enables everyone to be much more interdisciplinary, to see the connections between their individual subarea of expertise and other topics, and to identify new hypotheses. This is especially important in neuroscience because it is such a highly interdisciplinary field to begin with. The function and dysfunction of the human brain is the most difficult problem that science has ever faced. We are on a mission to change the way that biomedical scientists work and even how they think.
Epistemic also enables the discovery of genetic mechanisms of CNS disorders. Can you walk us through how this works?
Dr. David Heeger: Most neurological diseases, psychiatric illnesses, and developmental disorders do not have a simple explanation in terms of genetic differences. There are a handful of syndromic disorders for which a specific mutation is known to cause the disorder. But that’s not typically the case. There are hundreds of genetic differences, for example, that have been associated with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). There is some understanding for some of these genes about the functions they serve in terms of basic biology. For example, some of the genes associated with ASD hold synapses together in the brain (note, however, that the same genes typically perform different functions in other organ systems in the body). But there’s very little understanding about how these genetic differences can explain the complex suite of behavioral differences exhibited by individuals with ASD. To make matters worse, two individuals with the same genetic difference may have completely different outcomes, one diagnosed with ASD and the other, not. And two individuals with completely different genetic profiles may have the same outcome with very similar behavioral deficits. To understand all this requires making the connection from genomics and molecular biology to cellular neuroscience (how do the genetic differences cause individual neurons to function differently) and then to systems neuroscience (how do those differences in cellular function cause networks of large numbers of interconnected neurons to function differently) and then to psychology (how do those differences in neural network function cause differences in cognition, emotion, and behavior). And all of this needs to be understood from a developmental perspective. A genetic difference may cause a deficit in a particular aspect of neural function. But the brain doesn’t just sit there and take it. Brains are highly adaptive. If there’s a missing or broken mechanism then the brain will develop differently to compensate as much as possible. This compensation might be molecular, for example, upregulating another synaptic receptor to replace the function of a broken synaptic receptor. Or the compensation might be behavioral. The end result depends not only on the initial genetic difference but also on the various attempts to compensate relying on other molecular, cellular, circuit, systems, and behavioral mechanisms.
No individual has the knowledge to understand all this. We all need help. The AI-powered software platform that we’re building enables everyone to collect and link all the relevant biomedical knowledge, to see the connections and to identify new hypotheses.
How are biopharma and academic institutions using Epistemic to tackle the COVID-19 challenge?
Stefano Pacifico: We have released a public version of our platform that includes COVID specific datasets and is freely accessible to anyone doing research on COVID-19. It is available at https://covid.epistemic.ai
What are some of the other diseases or genetic issues that Epistemic have been used for?
Stefano Pacifico: We have collaborated with autism researchers and are most recently putting together a new research effort for Cystic Fibrosis. But we are happy to collaborate with any other researchers or institutions that might need help with their research.
Is there anything else that you would like to share about Epistemic?
Stefano Pacifico: We are building a movement of people that want to change the way biomedical researchers work and think. We sincerely hope that many of your readers will want to join us!
Thank you both for taking the time to answer our questions. Readers who wish to learn more should visit Epistemic AI.
The Future of Speech Scoring – Thought Leaders
Across the world, the number of English language learners continues to rise. Educational institutions and employers need to be able to assess the English proficiency of language learners – in particular, their speaking ability, since spoken language remains among the most essential language abilities. The challenge, for both assessment developers and end users, is finding a way to do so that is accurate, fast and financially viable. As part of this challenge, scoring these assessments comes with its own set of factors, especially when we consider the different areas (speech, writing, etc.) one is being tested on. With the demand for English-language skills across the globe only expected to increase, what would the future of speech scoring need to look like in order to meet these needs?
The answer to that question, in part, is found in the evolution of speech scoring to date. Rating constructed spoken responses has historically been done using human raters. This process, however, tends to be expensive and slow, and has additional challenges including scalability and various shortcomings of human raters themselves (e.g., rater subjectivity or bias). As discussed in our book Automated Speaking Assessment: Using Language Technologies to Score Spontaneous Speech, in order to address these challenges, an increasing number of assessments now make use of automated speech scoring technology as the sole source of scoring or in combination with human raters. Before deploying automated scoring engines, however, their performance needs to be thoroughly evaluated, particularly in relation to the score reliability, validity (does the system measure what it is supposed to?) and fairness (i.e., the system should not introduce bias related to population subgroups such as gender or native language).
Since 2006, ETS’s own speech scoring engine, SpeechRater®, has been operationalized in the TOEFL® Practice Online (TPO) assessment (used by prospective test takers to prepare for the TOEFL iBT® assessment), and since 2019, SpeechRater has also been used, along with human raters, for scoring the speaking section of the TOEFL iBT® assessment. The engine evaluates a wide range of speaking proficiency for spontaneous non-native speech, including pronunciation and fluency, vocabulary range and grammar, and higher-level speaking abilities related to coherence and progression of ideas. These features are computed by using natural language processing (NLP) and speech processing algorithms. A statistical model is then applied to these features in order to assign a final score to a test taker’s response.
While this model is trained on previously observed data scored by human raters, it is also reviewed by content experts to maximize its validity. If a response is found to be non-scorable due to audio quality or other issues, the engine can flag it for further review to avoid generating a potentially unreliable or invalid score. Human raters are always involved in the scoring of spoken responses in the high-stakes TOEFL iBT speaking assessment.
As human raters and SpeechRater are currently used together to score test takers’ responses in high-stakes speaking assessments, both play a part in what the future of scoring English language proficiency can be. Human raters have the ability to understand the content and discourse organization of a spoken response in a deep way. In contrast, automated speech scoring engines can more precisely measure certain detailed aspects of speech, such as fluency or pronunciation, exhibit perfect consistency over time, can reduce overall scoring time and cost, and are more easily scaled to support large testing volumes. When human raters and automated speech scoring systems are combined, the resulting system can benefit from the strengths of each scoring approach.
In order to continuously evolve automated speech scoring engines, research and development needs to focus on the following aspects, among others:
- Building automatic speech recognition systems with higher accuracy: Since most features of a speech scoring system rely directly or indirectly on this component of the system that converts the test taker’s speech to a text transcription, highly accurate automatic speech recognition is essential for obtaining valid features;
- Exploration of new ways to combine human and automated scores: In order to take full advantage of the respective strengths of human rater scores and automated engine scores, more ways of combining this evidence need to be explored;
- Accounting for abnormalities in responses, both technical and behavioral: High-performing filters capable of flagging such responses and excluding them from automated scoring are necessary to help ensure the validity and reliability of the resulting assessment scores;
- Assessment of spontaneous or conversational speech that occurs most often in day-to-day life: While automated scoring of such interactive speech is an important goal, these items present numerous scoring challenges, including overall evaluation and scoring;
- Exploring deep learning technologies for automated speech scoring: This relatively recent paradigm within machine learning has produced substantial performance increases on many artificial intelligence (AI) tasks in recent years (e.g., automatic speech recognition, image recognition), and therefore it is likely that automated scoring also may benefit from using this technology. However, since most of these systems can be considered “black-box” approaches, attention to the interpretability of the resulting score will be important to maintain some level of transparency.
To accommodate a growing and changing English-language learner population, next-generation speech scoring systems must expand automation and the range of what they are able to measure, enabling consistency and scalability. That is not to say the human element will be removed, especially for high-stakes assessments. Human raters will likely remain essential for capturing certain aspects of speech that will remain hard to evaluate accurately by automated scoring systems for a while to come, including the detailed aspects of spoken content and discourse. Using automated speech scoring systems in isolation for consequential assessments also runs the risk of not identifying problematic responses by test takers— for instance, responses that are off-topic or plagiarized, and, as a consequence, can lead to reduced validity and reliability. Using both human raters and automated scoring systems in combination may be the best way for scoring speech in high-stakes assessments for the foreseeable future, particularly if spontaneous or conversational speech is evaluated.
ETS works with education institutions, businesses and governments to conduct research and develop assessment programs that provide meaningful information they can count on to evaluate people and programs. ETS develops, administers and scores more than 50 million tests annually in more than 180 countries at more than 9,000 locations worldwide. We design our assessments with industry-leading insight, rigorous research and an uncompromising commitment to quality so that we can help education and workplace communities make informed decisions. To learn more visit ETS.
- Akilesh Bapu, Founder & CEO of DeepScribe – Interview Series
- AI Models Trained On Sex Biased Data Perform Worse At Diagnosing Disease
- Stefano Pacifico, and David Heeger, Co-Founders of Epistemic AI – Interview Series
- New Software Developed to Improve Robotic Prosthetics
- Power Your ML and AI Efforts with Data Transformation – Thought Leaders