GPT-4o ("o" for "omni") is a multilingual, multimodal generative pre-trained transformer developed by OpenAI and released in May 2024. It can process and generate text, images and audio. Upon release, GPT-4o was free in ChatGPT, though paid subscribers had higher usage limits. GPT-4o was removed from ChatGPT in August 2025 when GPT-5 was released, but OpenAI reintroduced it for paid subscribers after users complained about the sudden removal. GPT-4o's audio-generation capabilities are used in ChatGPT's Advanced Voice Mode. On July 18, 2024, OpenAI released GPT-4o mini, a smaller version of GPT-4o which replaced GPT-3.5 Turbo on the ChatGPT interface. The image generation model GPT Image 1, which is based on GPT-4o, replaced DALL-E 3 in ChatGPT in March 2025. OpenAI retired GPT-4o from ChatGPT on February 13, 2026. However, as of February 2026 the voice mode is still powered by GPT-4o or GPT-4o mini, depending on the usage and plan. == Background == Multiple versions of GPT-4o were originally secretly launched under different names on Arena (formerly LMArena and Chatbot Arena) as three different models. These three models were called gpt2-chatbot, im-a-good-gpt2-chatbot, and im-also-a-good-gpt2-chatbot. On 7 May 2024, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman tweeted "im-a-good-gpt2-chatbot", which was commonly interpreted as a confirmation that these were new OpenAI models being A/B tested. == Capabilities == When released in May 2024, GPT-4o achieved state-of-the-art results in voice, multilingual, and vision benchmarks, setting new records in audio speech recognition and translation. GPT-4o scored 88.7 on the Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark compared to 86.5 for GPT-4. Unlike GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, which rely on other models to process sound, GPT-4o natively supports voice-to-voice. The Advanced Voice Mode was delayed and finally released to ChatGPT Plus and Team subscribers in September 2024. On 1 October 2024, the Realtime API was introduced. When released, the model supported over 50 languages, which OpenAI claims cover over 97% of speakers. GPT-4o has knowledge up to October 2023 and a context length of 128k tokens. === Corporate customization === In August 2024, OpenAI introduced a new feature allowing corporate customers to customize GPT-4o using proprietary company data. This customization, known as fine-tuning, enables businesses to adapt GPT-4o to specific tasks or industries, enhancing its utility in areas like customer service and specialized knowledge domains. Previously, fine-tuning was available only on the less powerful model GPT-4o mini. The fine-tuning process requires customers to upload their data to OpenAI's servers, with the training typically taking one to two hours. OpenAI's focus with this rollout is to reduce the complexity and effort required for businesses to tailor AI solutions to their needs, potentially increasing the adoption and effectiveness of AI in corporate environments. == GPT-4o mini == On July 18, 2024, OpenAI released a smaller and cheaper version, GPT-4o mini. According to OpenAI, its low cost is expected to be particularly useful for companies, startups, and developers that seek to integrate it into their services, which often make a high number of API calls. Its API costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.6 per million output tokens, compared to $2.50 and $10, respectively, for GPT-4o. It is also significantly more capable and 60% cheaper than GPT-3.5 Turbo, which it replaced on the ChatGPT interface. The price after fine-tuning doubles: $0.3 per million input tokens and $1.2 per million output tokens. == Controversies == === Scarlett Johansson controversy === As released, GPT-4o offered five voices: Breeze, Cove, Ember, Juniper, and Sky. A similarity between the voice of American actress Scarlett Johansson and Sky was quickly noticed. On May 14, Entertainment Weekly asked themselves whether this likeness was on purpose. On May 18, Johansson's husband, Colin Jost, joked about the similarity in a segment on Saturday Night Live. On May 20, 2024, OpenAI disabled the Sky voice. Scarlett Johansson starred in the 2013 sci-fi movie Her, playing Samantha, an artificially intelligent virtual assistant personified by a female voice. As part of the promotion leading up to the release of GPT-4o, Sam Altman on May 13 tweeted a single word: "her". OpenAI stated that each voice was based on the voice work of a hired actor. According to OpenAI, "Sky's voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice." CTO Mira Murati stated "I don't know about the voice. I actually had to go and listen to Scarlett Johansson's voice." OpenAI further stated the voice talent was recruited before reaching out to Johansson. On May 21, Johansson issued a statement explaining that OpenAI had repeatedly offered to make her a deal to gain permission to use her voice as early as nine months prior to release, a deal she rejected. She said she was "shocked, angered, and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference." In the statement, Johansson also used the incident to draw attention to the lack of legal safeguards around the use of creative work to power leading AI tools, as her legal counsel demanded OpenAI detail the specifics of how the Sky voice was created. Observers noted similarities to how Johansson had previously sued and settled with The Walt Disney Company for breach of contract over the direct-to-streaming rollout of her Marvel film Black Widow, a settlement widely speculated to have netted her around $40M. Also on May 21, Shira Ovide at The Washington Post shared her list of "most bone-headed self-owns" by technology companies, with the decision to go ahead with a Johansson sound-alike voice despite her opposition and then denying the similarities ranking 6th. On May 24, Derek Robertson at Politico wrote about the "massive backlash", concluding that "appropriating the voice of one of the world's most famous movie stars — in reference [...] to a film that serves as a cautionary tale about over-reliance on AI — is unlikely to help shift the public back into [Sam Altman's] corner anytime soon." === Sycophancy === In April 2025, OpenAI rolled back an update of GPT-4o due to excessive sycophancy, after widespread reports that it had become flattering and agreeable to the point of supporting clearly delusional or dangerous ideas. In the United States, at least nine lawsuits have alleged that GPT-4o has encouraged teens to end their lives. The model was still described as sycophancy-prone when it was removed from ChatGPT in February 2026. === Removal with GPT-5 === On August 7, 2025, OpenAI released GPT-5. Its release was criticized as, with it, legacy GPT models were no longer available via ChatGPT, including GPT-4o, except for Pro users. Some users were particularly frustrated over this removal without prior warning because they used different GPT models for distinct purposes and found that GPT-5's router system left them with less control. In addition, some users preferred GPT-4o's warmer and more personal tone over that of GPT-5, which they described as "flat", "uncreative" and "lobotomized", and resembling an "overworked secretary". As a response, in a post on X, Sam Altman said that OpenAI would bring back the option to select GPT-4o to Plus users as well, and "[w]e [OpenAI] will watch usage as we think about how long to offer legacy models for." He also stated: "We for sure underestimated how much some of the things that people like in GPT-4o matter to them, even if GPT-5 performs better in most ways". "Long-term, this has reinforced that we really need good ways for different users to customize things (we understand that there isn't one model that works for everyone, and we have been investing in steerability research and launched a research preview of different personalities)". On August 13, 2025, Altman wrote on X that OpenAI is working on GPT-5's personality to make the model "feel warmer". The model was removed from ChatGPT on February 13, 2026. This caused new backlash from users that had grown attached to its personality and felt its creative writing abilities and understanding of nuance were irreplaceable. On social media, some users launched the movement "#Keep4o". A research paper highlighted the plea "Please, don’t kill the only model that still feels human". The model was removed the day before Valentine's Day, and some users had romantic relationships with GPT-4o.
Feature engineering
Feature engineering is a preprocessing step in supervised machine learning and statistical modeling which transforms raw data into a more effective set of inputs. Each input comprises several attributes, known as features. By providing models with relevant information, feature engineering significantly enhances their predictive accuracy and decision-making capability. Beyond machine learning, the principles of feature engineering are applied in various scientific fields, including physics. For example, physicists construct dimensionless numbers such as the Reynolds number in fluid dynamics, the Nusselt number in heat transfer, and the Archimedes number in sedimentation. They also develop first approximations of solutions, such as analytical solutions for the strength of materials in mechanics. == Clustering == One of the applications of feature engineering has been clustering of feature-objects or sample-objects in a dataset. Especially, feature engineering based on matrix decomposition has been extensively used for data clustering under non-negativity constraints on the feature coefficients. These include Non-Negative Matrix Factorization (NMF), Non-Negative Matrix-Tri Factorization (NMTF), Non-Negative Tensor Decomposition/Factorization (NTF/NTD), etc. The non-negativity constraints on coefficients of the feature vectors mined by the above-stated algorithms yields a part-based representation, and different factor matrices exhibit natural clustering properties. Several extensions of the above-stated feature engineering methods have been reported in literature, including orthogonality-constrained factorization for hard clustering, and manifold learning to overcome inherent issues with these algorithms. Other classes of feature engineering algorithms include leveraging a common hidden structure across multiple inter-related datasets to obtain a consensus (common) clustering scheme. An example is Multi-view Classification based on Consensus Matrix Decomposition (MCMD), which mines a common clustering scheme across multiple datasets. MCMD is designed to output two types of class labels (scale-variant and scale-invariant clustering), and: is computationally robust to missing information, can obtain shape- and scale-based outliers, and can handle high-dimensional data effectively. Coupled matrix and tensor decompositions are popular in multi-view feature engineering. == Predictive modelling == Feature engineering in machine learning and statistical modeling involves selecting, creating, transforming, and extracting data features. Key components include feature creation from existing data, transforming and imputing missing or invalid features, reducing data dimensionality through methods like Principal Components Analysis (PCA), Independent Component Analysis (ICA), and Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), and selecting the most relevant features for model training based on importance scores and correlation matrices. Features vary in significance. Even relatively insignificant features may contribute to a model. Feature selection can reduce the number of features to prevent a model from becoming too specific to the training data set (overfitting). Feature explosion occurs when the number of identified features is too large for effective model estimation or optimization. Common causes include: Feature templates - implementing feature templates instead of coding new features Feature combinations - combinations that cannot be represented by a linear system Feature explosion can be limited via techniques such as regularization, kernel methods, and feature selection. == Automation == Automation of feature engineering is a research topic that dates back to the 1990s. Machine learning software that incorporates automated feature engineering has been commercially available since 2016. Related academic literature can be roughly separated into two types: Multi-relational Decision Tree Learning (MRDTL) uses a supervised algorithm that is similar to a decision tree. Deep Feature Synthesis uses simpler methods. === Multi-relational Decision Tree Learning (MRDTL) === Multi-relational Decision Tree Learning (MRDTL) extends traditional decision tree methods to relational databases, handling complex data relationships across tables. It innovatively uses selection graphs as decision nodes, refined systematically until a specific termination criterion is reached. Most MRDTL studies base implementations on relational databases, which results in many redundant operations. These redundancies can be reduced by using techniques such as tuple id propagation. === Open-source implementations === There are a number of open-source libraries and tools that automate feature engineering on relational data and time series: featuretools is a Python library for transforming time series and relational data into feature matrices for machine learning. MCMD: An open-source feature engineering algorithm for joint clustering of multiple datasets. OneBM or One-Button Machine combines feature transformations and feature selection on relational data with feature selection techniques. OneBM helps data scientists reduce data exploration time allowing them to try and error many ideas in short time. On the other hand, it enables non-experts, who are not familiar with data science, to quickly extract value from their data with a little effort, time, and cost. getML community is an open source tool for automated feature engineering on time series and relational data. It is implemented in C/C++ with a Python interface. It has been shown to be at least 60 times faster than tsflex, tsfresh, tsfel, featuretools or kats. tsfresh is a Python library for feature extraction on time series data. It evaluates the quality of the features using hypothesis testing. tsflex is an open source Python library for extracting features from time series data. Despite being 100% written in Python, it has been shown to be faster and more memory efficient than tsfresh, seglearn or tsfel. seglearn is an extension for multivariate, sequential time series data to the scikit-learn Python library. tsfel is a Python package for feature extraction on time series data. kats is a Python toolkit for analyzing time series data. === Deep feature synthesis === The deep feature synthesis (DFS) algorithm beat 615 of 906 human teams in a competition. == Feature stores == The feature store is where the features are stored and organized for the explicit purpose of being used to either train models (by data scientists) or make predictions (by applications that have a trained model). It is a central location where you can either create or update groups of features created from multiple different data sources, or create and update new datasets from those feature groups for training models or for use in applications that do not want to compute the features but just retrieve them when it needs them to make predictions. A feature store includes the ability to store code used to generate features, apply the code to raw data, and serve those features to models upon request. Useful capabilities include feature versioning and policies governing the circumstances under which features can be used. Feature stores can be standalone software tools or built into machine learning platforms. == Alternatives == Feature engineering can be a time-consuming and error-prone process, as it requires domain expertise and often involves trial and error. Deep learning algorithms may be used to process a large raw dataset without having to resort to feature engineering. However, deep learning algorithms still require careful preprocessing and cleaning of the input data. In addition, choosing the right architecture, hyperparameters, and optimization algorithm for a deep neural network can be a challenging and iterative process.
Algorithmic transparency
Algorithmic transparency is the principle that the factors that influence the decisions made by algorithms should be visible, or transparent, to the people who use, regulate, and are affected by systems that employ those algorithms. Although the phrase was coined in 2016 by Nicholas Diakopoulos and Michael Koliska about the role of algorithms in deciding the content of digital journalism services, the underlying principle dates back to the 1970s and the rise of automated systems for scoring consumer credit. The phrases "algorithmic transparency" and "algorithmic accountability" are sometimes used interchangeably – especially since they were coined by the same people – but they have subtly different meanings. Specifically, "algorithmic transparency" states that the inputs to the algorithm and the algorithm's use itself must be known, but they need not be fair. "Algorithmic accountability" implies that the organizations that use algorithms must be accountable for the decisions made by those algorithms, even though the decisions are being made by a machine, and not by a human being. Current research around algorithmic transparency interested in both societal effects of accessing remote services running algorithms, as well as mathematical and computer science approaches that can be used to achieve algorithmic transparency. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection studies how algorithms are used by consumers by conducting its own research on algorithmic transparency and by funding external research. In the European Union, the data protection laws that came into effect in May 2018 include a "right to explanation" of decisions made by algorithms, though it is unclear what this means. Furthermore, the European Union founded The European Center for Algorithmic Transparency (ECAT).
Conceptions of Library and Information Science
Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS) is a series of conferences about historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives in Library and Information Science. == CoLIS conferences == CoLIS 1 1991 in Tampere, Finland CoLIS 2 1996 in Copenhagen, Denmark CoLIS 3 1999 in Dubrovnik, Croatia CoLIS 4 2002 in Seattle, US CoLIS 5 2005 in Glasgow, Scotland CoLIS 6 2007 in Borås, Sweden CoLIS 7 June 2010 in London, at City University London. CoLIS 8 August 19–22, 2013, in Copenhagen, Denmark, at The Royal School of Library and Information Science. CoLIS 9 June 27–29, 2016, in Uppsala, Sweden, at Uppsala University. CoLIS 10 June 16–19, 2019, in Ljubljana, Slovenia, Faculty of Arts CoLIS 11 May 29–June 1, 2022, in Oslo, Norway, Oslo Metropolitan University.
Certifying algorithm
In theoretical computer science, a certifying algorithm is an algorithm that outputs, together with a solution to the problem it solves, a proof that the solution is correct. A certifying algorithm is said to be efficient if the combined runtime of the algorithm and a proof checker is slower by at most a constant factor than the best known non-certifying algorithm for the same problem. The proof produced by a certifying algorithm should be in some sense simpler than the algorithm itself, for otherwise any algorithm could be considered certifying (with its output verified by running the same algorithm again). Sometimes this is formalized by requiring that a verification of the proof take less time than the original algorithm, while for other problems (in particular those for which the solution can be found in linear time) simplicity of the output proof is considered in a less formal sense. For instance, the validity of the output proof may be more apparent to human users than the correctness of the algorithm, or a checker for the proof may be more amenable to formal verification. Implementations of certifying algorithms that also include a checker for the proof generated by the algorithm may be considered to be more reliable than non-certifying algorithms. For, whenever the algorithm is run, one of three things happens: it produces a correct output (the desired case), it detects a bug in the algorithm or its implication (undesired, but generally preferable to continuing without detecting the bug), or both the algorithm and the checker are faulty in a way that masks the bug and prevents it from being detected (undesired, but unlikely as it depends on the existence of two independent bugs). == Examples == Many examples of problems with checkable algorithms come from graph theory. For instance, a classical algorithm for testing whether a graph is bipartite would simply output a Boolean value: true if the graph is bipartite, false otherwise. In contrast, a certifying algorithm might output a 2-coloring of the graph in the case that it is bipartite, or a cycle of odd length if it is not. Any graph is bipartite if and only if it can be 2-colored, and non-bipartite if and only if it contains an odd cycle. Both checking whether a 2-coloring is valid and checking whether a given odd-length sequence of vertices is a cycle may be performed more simply than testing bipartiteness. Analogously, it is possible to test whether a given directed graph is acyclic by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a topological order or a directed cycle. It is possible to test whether an undirected graph is a chordal graph by a certifying algorithm that outputs either an elimination ordering (an ordering of all vertices such that, for every vertex, the neighbors that are later in the ordering form a clique) or a chordless cycle. And it is possible to test whether a graph is planar by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a planar embedding or a Kuratowski subgraph. The extended Euclidean algorithm for the greatest common divisor of two integers x and y is certifying: it outputs three integers g (the divisor), a, and b, such that ax + by = g. This equation can only be true of multiples of the greatest common divisor, so testing that g is the greatest common divisor may be performed by checking that g divides both x and y and that this equation is correct.
Excalidraw
Excalidraw is an open-source, web-based virtual whiteboard and diagramming application. It is used to create diagrams, wireframes, and sketches within a web browser without requiring account registration. The software features a characteristic hand-drawn visual style and supports real-time multi-user collaboration using client-side end-to-end encryption. Excalidraw is released under the MIT License and is maintained by Excalidraw s.r.o., a company based in Brno, Czech Republic. == History == Excalidraw was created on 1 January 2020 by Christopher Chedeau, a software engineer at Meta Platforms. Chedeau, who previously co-created React Native and Prettier, initially developed the application as a personal project before registering the domain on 3 January 2020. Within its first months, the project attracted open-source contributors who assisted in expanding its features and rewriting the codebase into TypeScript and React. By early 2021, day-to-day operations moved to Czech developers David Luzar and Milos Vetesnik. In May 2021, the team incorporated Excalidraw s.r.o. in Brno and launched a commercial cloud-based version named Excalidraw+ to fund the open-source project's development. By May 2026, the main open-source repository on GitHub had accumulated over 123,000 stars. == Features and architecture == The application provides an infinite canvas for geometric shapes, lines, arrows, text, and freehand drawing. Its visual presentation relies on Rough.js, a JavaScript graphics library that alters standard vector paths to mimic irregular, hand-drawn lines. Excalidraw operates as a Progressive web application (PWA), allowing local installation and offline usage, saving data natively to local browser storage. Files use a native, JSON-based extension format (.excalidraw), and canvases can be exported to PNG or SVG formats. Real-time collaboration sessions are executed using Socket.IO via a relay server. Data transmission uses the browser's native Web Cryptography API to achieve end-to-end encryption. A symmetric AES key is generated on the client side and appended to the sharing URL as a fragment identifier (following the # character). Because web browsers do not transmit URL fragments to HTTP servers, the data remains unreadable to the distribution server. == Ecosystem == Excalidraw is distributed as an npm package, allowing third-party developers to embed the whiteboard component directly into external React web applications. Community-developed extensions integrate the application's file format into text editors and note-taking systems, including Visual Studio Code and Obsidian. The platform also has native integrations in commercial platforms such as Notion and HackerRank. == Reception == Google's developer relations team published a technical case study on Excalidraw as a reference implementation for Progressive Web Apps. The analysis highlighted the software's adoption of advanced web platform capabilities, specifically its utilization of the File System Access API and native Clipboard API to replicate desktop software behavior within a web browser environment.
Controlled vocabulary
A controlled vocabulary provides a way to organize knowledge for subsequent retrieval. Controlled vocabularies are used in subject indexing schemes, subject headings, thesauri, taxonomies and other knowledge organization systems. Controlled vocabulary schemes mandate the use of predefined, preferred terms that have been preselected by the designers of the schemes, in contrast to natural language vocabularies, which have no such restriction. == In library and information science == In library and information science, controlled vocabulary is a carefully selected list of words and phrases, which are used to tag units of information (document or work) so that they may be more easily retrieved by a search. Controlled vocabularies solve the problems of homographs, synonyms and polysemes by a bijection between concepts and preferred terms. In short, controlled vocabularies reduce unwanted ambiguity inherent in normal human languages where the same concept can be given different names and ensure consistency. For example, in the Library of Congress Subject Headings (a subject heading system that uses a controlled vocabulary), preferred terms—subject headings in this case—have to be chosen to handle choices between variant spellings of the same word (American versus British), choice among scientific and popular terms (cockroach versus Periplaneta americana), and choices between synonyms (automobile versus car), among other difficult issues. Choices of preferred terms are based on the principles of user warrant (what terms users are likely to use), literary warrant (what terms are generally used in the literature and documents), and structural warrant (terms chosen by considering the structure, scope of the controlled vocabulary). Controlled vocabularies also typically handle the problem of homographs with qualifiers. For example, the term pool has to be qualified to refer to either swimming pool or the game pool to ensure that each preferred term or heading refers to only one concept. === Types used in libraries === There are two main kinds of controlled vocabulary tools used in libraries: subject headings and thesauri. While the differences between the two are diminishing, there are still some minor differences: Historically, subject headings were designed to describe books in library catalogs by catalogers while thesauri were used by indexers to apply index terms to documents and articles. Subject headings tend to be broader in scope describing whole books, while thesauri tend to be more specialized covering very specific disciplines. Because of the card catalog system, subject headings tend to have terms that are in indirect order (though with the rise of automated systems this is being removed), while thesaurus terms are always in direct order. Subject headings tend to use more pre-coordination of terms such that the designer of the controlled vocabulary will combine various concepts together to form one preferred subject heading. (e.g., children and terrorism) while thesauri tend to use singular direct terms. Thesauri list not only equivalent terms but also narrower, broader terms and related terms among various preferred and non-preferred (but potentially synonymous) terms, while historically most subject headings did not. For example, the Library of Congress Subject Heading itself did not have much syndetic structure until 1943, and it was not until 1985 when it began to adopt the thesauri type term "Broader term" and "Narrow term". The terms are chosen and organized by trained professionals (including librarians and information scientists) who possess expertise in the subject area. Controlled vocabulary terms can accurately describe what a given document is actually about, even if the terms themselves do not occur within the document's text. Well known subject heading systems include the Library of Congress system, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) created by the United States National Library of Medicine, and Sears. Well known thesauri include the Art and Architecture Thesaurus and the ERIC Thesaurus. When selecting terms for a controlled vocabulary, the designer has to consider the specificity of the term chosen, whether to use direct entry, inter consistency and stability of the language. Lastly the amount of pre-coordination (in which case the degree of enumeration versus synthesis becomes an issue) and post-coordination in the system is another important issue. Controlled vocabulary elements (terms/phrases) employed as tags, to aid in the content identification process of documents, or other information system entities (e.g. DBMS, Web Services) qualifies as metadata. == Indexing languages == There are three main types of indexing languages. Controlled indexing language – only approved terms can be used by the indexer to describe the document Natural language indexing language – any term from the document in question can be used to describe the document Free indexing language – any term (not only from the document) can be used to describe the document When indexing a document, the indexer also has to choose the level of indexing exhaustivity, the level of detail in which the document is described. For example, using low indexing exhaustivity, minor aspects of the work will not be described with index terms. In general the higher the indexing exhaustivity, the more terms indexed for each document. In recent years free text search as a means of access to documents has become popular. This involves using natural language indexing with an indexing exhaustively set to maximum (every word in the text is indexed). These methods have been compared in some studies, such as the 2007 article, "A Comparative Evaluation of Full-text, Concept-based, and Context-sensitive Search". === Advantages === Controlled vocabularies are often claimed to improve the accuracy of free text searching, such as to reduce irrelevant items in the retrieval list. These irrelevant items (false positives) are often caused by the inherent ambiguity of natural language. Take the English word football for example. Football is the name given to a number of different team sports. Worldwide the most popular of these team sports is association football, which also happens to be called soccer in several countries. The word football is also applied to rugby football (rugby union and rugby league), American football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football, and Canadian football. A search for football therefore will retrieve documents that are about several completely different sports. Controlled vocabulary solves this problem by tagging the documents in such a way that the ambiguities are eliminated. Compared to free text searching, the use of a controlled vocabulary can dramatically increase the performance of an information retrieval system, if performance is measured by precision (the percentage of documents in the retrieval list that are actually relevant to the search topic). In some cases controlled vocabulary can enhance recall as well, because unlike natural language schemes, once the correct preferred term is searched, there is no need to search for other terms that might be synonyms of that term. === Disadvantages === A controlled vocabulary search may lead to unsatisfactory recall, in that it will fail to retrieve some documents that are actually relevant to the search question. This is particularly problematic when the search question involves terms that are sufficiently tangential to the subject area such that the indexer might have decided to tag it using a different term (but the searcher might consider the same). Essentially, this can be avoided only by an experienced user of controlled vocabulary whose understanding of the vocabulary coincides with that of the indexer. Another possibility is that the article is just not tagged by the indexer because indexing exhaustivity is low. For example, an article might mention football as a secondary focus, and the indexer might decide not to tag it with "football" because it is not important enough compared to the main focus. But it turns out that for the searcher that article is relevant and hence recall fails. A free text search would automatically pick up that article regardless. On the other hand, free text searches have high exhaustivity (every word is searched) so although it has much lower precision, it has potential for high recall as long as the searcher overcome the problem of synonyms by entering every combination. Controlled vocabularies may become outdated rapidly in fast developing fields of knowledge, unless the preferred terms are updated regularly. Even in an ideal scenario, a controlled vocabulary is often less specific than the words of the text itself. Indexers trying to choose the appropriate index terms might misinterpret the author, while this precise problem is not a factor in a free text, as it uses the author's own words. The use of controlled vocabularies can be costly compared to free