The following is a list of video editing software. The criterion for inclusion in this list is the ability to perform non-linear video editing. Most modern transcoding software supports transcoding a portion of a video clip, which would count as cropping and trimming. However, items in this article have one of the following conditions: Can perform other non-linear video editing function such as montage or compositing Can do the trimming or cropping without transcoding == Free (libre) or open-source == The software listed in this section is either free software or open source, and may or may not be commercial. === Active and stable === === Inactive === == Proprietary (non-commercial) == The software listed in this section is proprietary, and freeware or freemium. === Active === === Discontinued === == Proprietary (commercial) == The software listed in this section is proprietary and commercial. === Active === === Discontinued ===
VGACAD
VGACAD was the parent of a suite of shareware graphic utilities made for the MS-DOS operating system used in the IBM PC and clones. It was popular for editing and capturing images using BSAVE (graphics image format) and provided an early graphic editing suite compatible with multiple graphic cards and resolutions, used on the IBM PC. == Usage == Written by Lawrence Gozum in 1987, it was the genesis of multiple versions and improvements over 10 years. Ran with his brother, Marvin initially helped with design ideas, strategic focus, technical support calls, and managing the early shareware business. The growth of the VGACAD suite grew quickly to preoccupy most of their time. Lawrence then focused more of his efforts on software and formed Applied Insights, to manage VGACAD and its offspring, VidFun, and Ai Picture Explorer. At its peak, its users ranged from individuals, Federal government offices, museums and major newspapers. == Features == VGACAD was a misnomer, and meant VGA-Computer Assisted Drawing, rather than computer-aided design, as CAD is commonly referred to today. Its longevity was due to its color accuracy, speed, small size, and that its suite of small utilities often worked stand-alone. One called VGACAP, for 'capture', dumped video memory into a file that could later be converted to popular graphic image formats, later made commonplace when Microsoft Windows programmed the print screen key to dump graphics into the clipboard. However, VGACAP ran insulated apart from early versions of Windows, and thus could capture screens were applications prohibited such function.
Tagged Deterministic Finite Automaton
In the automata theory, a tagged deterministic finite automaton (TDFA) is an extension of deterministic finite automaton (DFA). In addition to solving the recognition problem for regular languages, TDFA is also capable of submatch extraction and parsing. While canonical DFA can find out if a string belongs to the language defined by a regular expression, TDFA can also extract substrings that match specific subexpressions. More generally, TDFA can identify positions in the input string that match tagged positions in a regular expression (tags are meta-symbols similar to capturing parentheses, but without the pairing requirement). == History == TDFA were first described by Ville Laurikari in 2000. Prior to that it was unknown whether it is possible to perform submatch extraction in one pass on a deterministic finite-state automaton, so this paper was an important advancement. Laurikari described TDFA construction and gave a proof that the determinization process terminates, however the algorithm did not handle disambiguation correctly. In 2007 Chris Kuklewicz implemented TDFA in a Haskell library Regex-TDFA with POSIX longest-match semantics. Kuklewicz gave an informal description of the algorithm and answered the principal question whether TDFA are capable of POSIX longest-match disambiguation, which was doubted by other researchers. In 2017 Ulya Trafimovich described TDFA with one-symbol lookahead. The use of a lookahead symbol reduces the number of registers and register operations in a TDFA, which makes it faster and often smaller than Laurikari TDFA. Trafimovich called TDFA variants with and without lookahead TDFA(1) and TDFA(0) by analogy with LR parsers LR(1) and LR(0). The algorithm was implemented in the open-source lexer generator RE2C. Trafimovich formalized Kuklewicz disambiguation algorithm. In 2018 Angelo Borsotti worked on an experimental Java implementation of TDFA; it was published later in 2021. In 2019 Borsotti and Trafimovich adapted POSIX disambiguation algorithm by Okui and Suzuki to TDFA. They gave a formal proof of correctness of the new algorithm and showed that it is faster than Kuklewicz algorithm in practice. In 2020 Trafimovich published an article about TDFA implementation in RE2C. In 2022 Borsotti and Trafimovich published a paper with a detailed description of TDFA construction. The paper incorporated their past research and presented multi-pass TDFA that are better suited to just-in-time determinization. They also compared TDFA against other algorithms and provided benchmarks. == Formal definition == TDFA have the same basic structure as ordinary DFA: a finite set of states linked by transitions. In addition to that, TDFA have a fixed set of registers that hold tag values, and register operations on transitions that set or copy register values. The values may be scalar offsets, or offset lists for tags that match repeatedly (the latter can be represented efficiently using a trie structure). There is no one-to-one mapping between tags in a regular expression and registers in a TDFA: a single tag may need many registers, and the same register may hold values of different tags. The following definition is according to Trafimovich and Borsotti. The original definition by Laurikari is slightly different. A tagged deterministic finite automaton F {\displaystyle F} is a tuple ( Σ , T , S , S f , s 0 , R , R f , δ , φ ) {\displaystyle (\Sigma ,T,S,S_{f},s_{0},R,R_{f},\delta ,\varphi )} , where: Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is a finite set of symbols (alphabet) T {\displaystyle T} is a finite set of tags S {\displaystyle S} is a finite set of states with initial state s 0 {\displaystyle s_{0}} and a subset of final states S f ⊆ S {\displaystyle S_{f}\subseteq S} R {\displaystyle R} is a finite set of registers with a subset of final registers R f {\displaystyle R_{f}} (one per tag) δ : S × Σ → S × O ∗ {\displaystyle \delta :S\times \Sigma \rightarrow S\times O^{}} is a transition function φ : S f → O ∗ {\displaystyle \varphi :S_{f}\rightarrow O^{}} is a final function, where O {\displaystyle O} is a set of register operations of the following types: set register i {\displaystyle i} to nil or to the current position: i ← v {\displaystyle i\leftarrow v} , where v ∈ { n , p } {\displaystyle v\in \{\mathbf {n} ,\mathbf {p} \}} copy register j {\displaystyle j} to register i {\displaystyle i} : i ← j {\displaystyle i\leftarrow j} copy register j {\displaystyle j} to register i {\displaystyle i} and append history: i ← j ⋅ h {\displaystyle i\leftarrow j\cdot h} , where h {\displaystyle h} is a string over { n , p } {\displaystyle \{\mathbf {n} ,\mathbf {p} \}} === Example === Figure 0 shows an example TDFA for regular expression ( 1 a 2 ) ∗ 3 ( a | 4 b ) 5 b ∗ {\displaystyle (1a2)^{}3(a|4b)5b^{}} with alphabet Σ = { a , b } {\displaystyle \Sigma =\{a,b\}} and a set of tags T = { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 } {\displaystyle T=\{1,2,3,4,5\}} that matches strings of the form a … a b … b {\displaystyle a\dots ab\dots b} with at least one symbol. TDFA has four states S = { 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 } {\displaystyle S=\{0,1,2,3\}} three of which are final S f = { 1 , 2 , 3 } {\displaystyle S_{f}=\{1,2,3\}} . The set of registers is R = { r 1 , r 2 , r 3 , r 4 , r 5 } {\displaystyle R=\{r_{1},r_{2},r_{3},r_{4},r_{5}\}} with a subset of final registers R f = { r 1 , r 2 , r 3 , r 4 , r 5 } {\displaystyle R_{f}=\{r_{1},r_{2},r_{3},r_{4},r_{5}\}} where register r i {\displaystyle r_{i}} corresponds to i {\displaystyle i} -th tag. Transitions have operations defined by the δ {\displaystyle \delta } function, and final states have operations defined by the φ {\displaystyle \varphi } function (marked with wide-tipped arrow). For example, to match string a a b {\displaystyle aab} , one starts in state 0, matches the first a {\displaystyle a} and moves to state 1 (setting registers r 1 , r 2 {\displaystyle r_{1},r_{2}} to undefined and r 3 {\displaystyle r_{3}} to the current position 0), matches the second a {\displaystyle a} and loops to state 1 (register values are now r 1 = 0 , r 2 = r 3 = 1 {\displaystyle r_{1}=0,r_{2}=r_{3}=1} ), matches b {\displaystyle b} and moves to state 2 (register values are now r 1 = 1 , r 2 = r 3 = r 4 = 2 {\displaystyle r_{1}=1,r_{2}=r_{3}=r_{4}=2} ), executes the final operations in state 2 (register values are now r 1 = 1 , r 2 = r 3 = r 4 = 2 , r 5 = 3 {\displaystyle r_{1}=1,r_{2}=r_{3}=r_{4}=2,r_{5}=3} ) and finally exits TDFA. == Complexity == Canonical DFA solve the recognition problem in linear time. The same holds for TDFA, since the number of registers and register operations is fixed and depends only on the regular expression, but not on the length of input. The overhead on submatch extraction depends on tag density in a regular expression and nondeterminism degree of each tag (the maximum number of registers needed to track all possible values of the tag in a single TDFA state). On one extreme, if there are no tags, a TDFA is identical to a canonical DFA. On the other extreme, if every subexpression is tagged, a TDFA effectively performs full parsing and has many operations on every transition. In practice for real-world regular expressions with a few submatch groups the overhead is negligible compared to matching with canonical DFA. == TDFA construction == TDFA construction is performed in a few steps. First, a regular expression is converted to a tagged nondeterministic finite automaton (TNFA). Second, a TNFA is converted to a TDFA using a determinization procedure; this step also includes disambiguation that resolves conflicts between ambiguous TNFA paths. After that, a TDFA can optionally go through a number of optimizations that reduce the number of registers and operations, including minimization that reduces the number of states. Algorithms for all steps of TDFA construction with pseudocode are given in the paper by Borsotti and Trafimovich. This section explains TDFA construction on the example of a regular expression a ∗ t b ∗ | a b {\displaystyle a^{}tb^{}|ab} , where t {\displaystyle t} is a tag and { a , b } {\displaystyle \{a,b\}} are alphabet symbols. === Tagged NFA === TNFA is a nondeterministic finite automaton with tagged ε-transitions. It was first described by Laurikari, although similar constructions were known much earlier as Mealy machines and nondeterministic finite-state transducers. TNFA construction is very similar to Thompson's construction: it mirrors the structure of a regular expression. Importantly, TNFA preserves ambiguity in a regular expression: if it is possible to match a string in two different ways, then TNFA for this regular expression has two different accepting paths for this string. TNFA definition by Borsotti and Trafimovich differs from the original one by Laurikari in that TNFA can have negative tags on transitions: they are needed to make the absence of match explicit in cases when there is a bypass for a tagged transition. Figure 1 shows TNFA for the example regu
Is an AI Background Remover Worth It in 2026?
Comparing the best AI background remover? An AI background remover 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 background remover slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Interacting particle system
In probability theory, an interacting particle system (IPS) is a stochastic process ( X ( t ) ) t ∈ R + {\displaystyle (X(t))_{t\in \mathbb {R} ^{+}}} on some configuration space Ω = S G {\displaystyle \Omega =S^{G}} given by a site space, a countably-infinite-order graph G {\displaystyle G} and a local state space, a compact metric space S {\displaystyle S} . More precisely IPS are continuous-time Markov jump processes describing the collective behavior of stochastically interacting components. IPS are the continuous-time analogue of stochastic cellular automata. Among the main examples are the voter model, the contact process, the asymmetric simple exclusion process (ASEP), the Glauber dynamics and in particular the stochastic Ising model. IPS are usually defined via their Markov generator giving rise to a unique Markov process using Markov semigroups and the Hille-Yosida theorem. The generator again is given via so-called transition rates c Λ ( η , ξ ) > 0 {\displaystyle c_{\Lambda }(\eta ,\xi )>0} where Λ ⊂ G {\displaystyle \Lambda \subset G} is a finite set of sites and η , ξ ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \eta ,\xi \in \Omega } with η i = ξ i {\displaystyle \eta _{i}=\xi _{i}} for all i ∉ Λ {\displaystyle i\notin \Lambda } . The rates describe exponential waiting times of the process to jump from configuration η {\displaystyle \eta } into configuration ξ {\displaystyle \xi } . More generally the transition rates are given in form of a finite measure c Λ ( η , d ξ ) {\displaystyle c_{\Lambda }(\eta ,d\xi )} on S Λ {\displaystyle S^{\Lambda }} . The generator L {\displaystyle L} of an IPS has the following form. First, the domain of L {\displaystyle L} is a subset of the space of "observables", that is, the set of real valued continuous functions on the configuration space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . Then for any observable f {\displaystyle f} in the domain of L {\displaystyle L} , one has L f ( η ) = ∑ Λ ∫ ξ : ξ Λ c = η Λ c c Λ ( η , d ξ ) [ f ( ξ ) − f ( η ) ] {\displaystyle Lf(\eta )=\sum _{\Lambda }\int _{\xi :\xi _{\Lambda ^{c}}=\eta _{\Lambda ^{c}}}c_{\Lambda }(\eta ,d\xi )[f(\xi )-f(\eta )]} . For example, for the stochastic Ising model we have G = Z d {\displaystyle G=\mathbb {Z} ^{d}} , S = { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle S=\{-1,+1\}} , c Λ = 0 {\displaystyle c_{\Lambda }=0} if Λ ≠ { i } {\displaystyle \Lambda \neq \{i\}} for some i ∈ G {\displaystyle i\in G} and c i ( η , η i ) = exp [ − β ∑ j : | j − i | = 1 η i η j ] {\displaystyle c_{i}(\eta ,\eta ^{i})=\exp[-\beta \sum _{j:|j-i|=1}\eta _{i}\eta _{j}]} where η i {\displaystyle \eta ^{i}} is the configuration equal to η {\displaystyle \eta } except it is flipped at site i {\displaystyle i} . β {\displaystyle \beta } is a new parameter modeling the inverse temperature. == The Voter model == The voter model (usually in continuous time, but there are discrete versions as well) is a process similar to the contact process. In this process η ( x ) {\displaystyle \eta (x)} is taken to represent a voter's attitude on a particular topic. Voters reconsider their opinions at times distributed according to independent exponential random variables (this gives a Poisson process locally – note that there are in general infinitely many voters so no global Poisson process can be used). At times of reconsideration, a voter chooses one neighbor uniformly from amongst all neighbors and takes that neighbor's opinion. One can generalize the process by allowing the picking of neighbors to be something other than uniform. === Discrete time process === In the discrete time voter model in one dimension, ξ t ( x ) : Z → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \xi _{t}(x):\mathbb {Z} \to \{0,1\}} represents the state of particle x {\displaystyle x} at time t {\displaystyle t} . Informally each individual is arranged on a line and can "see" other individuals that are within a radius, r {\displaystyle r} . If more than a certain proportion, θ {\displaystyle \theta } of these people disagree then the individual changes her attitude, otherwise she keeps it the same. Durrett and Steif (1993) and Steif (1994) show that for large radii there is a critical value θ c {\displaystyle \theta _{c}} such that if θ > θ c {\displaystyle \theta >\theta _{c}} most individuals never change, and for θ ∈ ( 1 / 2 , θ c ) {\displaystyle \theta \in (1/2,\theta _{c})} in the limit most sites agree. (Both of these results assume the probability of ξ 0 ( x ) = 1 {\displaystyle \xi _{0}(x)=1} is one half.) This process has a natural generalization to more dimensions, some results for this are discussed in Durrett and Steif (1993). === Continuous time process === The continuous time process is similar in that it imagines each individual has a belief at a time and changes it based on the attitudes of its neighbors. The process is described informally by Liggett (1985, 226), "Periodically (i.e., at independent exponential times), an individual reassesses his view in a rather simple way: he chooses a 'friend' at random with certain probabilities and adopts his position." A model was constructed with this interpretation by Holley and Liggett (1975). This process is equivalent to a process first suggested by Clifford and Sudbury (1973) where animals are in conflict over territory and are equally matched. A site is selected to be invaded by a neighbor at a given time.
GasBuddy
GasBuddy is a technology company headquartered in Dallas, United States, that offers mobile applications and websites for tracking crowd-sourced locations and prices of gas stations and convenience stores in the United States and Canada. Their platforms offer information sourced from users, gas station operators, and partner companies. They also provide business-to-business services to gas stations and convenience store owners. == History == GasBuddy was founded in Minneapolis in 2000 by Dustin Coupal, Jason Toews as a community website for sharing gas prices. In 2004, they filed as a for-profit corporation in Minnesota under the name GasBuddy Organization Inc. In 2009, GasBuddy launched OpenStore, a platform that allows convenience stores to build and manage their own mobile apps. In 2010, the company launched its own mobile apps that allowed users to input gas prices from their smartphones. In 2013, Oil Price Information Service (OPIS), a subsidiary of UCG, acquired GasBuddy. OPIS is a provider of petroleum pricing and news for businesses. In 2016, IHS acquired OPIS, separating from GasBuddy, which remained with UCG as a subsidiary company. Initially only available in the United States and Canada, GasBuddy launched in Australia in March 2016. Also in that year, GasBuddy released a completely redesigned app, its first major redesign since its release in 2010. GasBuddy also unveiled a new logo and launched GasBuddy Business Pages. GasBuddy shut down the Australian version of their app in 2022. In 2017, GasBuddy launched a gas savings program titled "Pay with GasBuddy" intended to let consumers save at gas stations in the United States. In the same year, GasBuddy was involved in a lawsuit with Reveal Mobile, a location-based marketing company, over the sale of user location data. It was revealed that GasBuddy sold information on more than 4.5 million users to Reveal each month for $9.50 per 1000 users. According to CNET, that information included "users' latitude, longitude, IP address, and time stamps on the data collected," which sparked concern in the media and between its users. In 2021, the GasBuddy app rose to the most popular app on both Android and iPhone platforms in the wake of the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack PDI acquired GasBuddy in 2021.
How to Choose an AI Pair Programmer
In search of the best AI pair programmer? An AI pair programmer 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 pair programmer slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.