Autoscaling, (also written as auto scaling, auto-scaling, or known as automatic scaling), is a method used in cloud computing that dynamically adjusts the amount of computational resources in a server farm - typically measured by the number of active servers - automatically based on the load on the farm. For example, the number of servers running behind a web application may be increased or decreased automatically based on the number of active users on the site. Since such metrics may change dramatically throughout the course of the day, and servers are a limited resource that cost money to run even while idle, there is often an incentive to run "just enough" servers to support the current load while still being able to support sudden and large spikes in activity. Autoscaling is helpful for such needs, as it can reduce the number of active servers when activity is low, and launch new servers when activity is high. Autoscaling is closely related to, and builds upon, the idea of load balancing. == Advantages == Autoscaling offers the following advantages: For companies running their own web server infrastructure, autoscaling typically means allowing some servers to go to sleep during times of low load, saving on electricity costs (as well as water costs if water is being used to cool the machines). For companies using infrastructure hosted in the cloud, autoscaling can mean lower bills, because most cloud providers charge based on total usage rather than maximum capacity. Even for companies that cannot reduce the total compute capacity they run or pay for at any given time, autoscaling can help by allowing the company to run less time-sensitive workloads on machines that get freed up by autoscaling during times of low traffic. Autoscaling solutions, such as the one offered by Amazon Web Services, can also take care of replacing unhealthy instances and therefore protecting somewhat against hardware, network, and application failures. Autoscaling can offer greater uptime and more availability in cases where production workloads are variable and unpredictable. Autoscaling differs from having a fixed daily, weekly, or yearly cycle of server use in that it is responsive to actual usage patterns, and thus reduces the potential downside of having too few or too many servers for the traffic load. For instance, if traffic is usually lower at midnight, then a static scaling solution might schedule some servers to sleep at night, but this might result in downtime on a night where people happen to use the Internet more (for instance, due to a viral news event). Autoscaling, on the other hand, can handle unexpected traffic spikes better. == Terminology == In the list below, we use the terminology used by Amazon Web Services (AWS). However, alternative names are noted and terminology that is specific to the names of Amazon services is not used for the names. == Practice == === Amazon Web Services (AWS) === Amazon Web Services launched the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) service in August 2006, that allowed developers to programmatically create and terminate instances (machines). At the time of initial launch, AWS did not offer autoscaling, but the ability to programmatically create and terminate instances gave developers the flexibility to write their own code for autoscaling. Third-party autoscaling software for AWS began appearing around April 2008. These included tools by Scalr and RightScale. RightScale was used by Animoto, which was able to handle Facebook traffic by adopting autoscaling. On May 18, 2009, Amazon launched its own autoscaling feature along with Elastic Load Balancing, as part of Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud. Autoscaling is now an integral component of Amazon's EC2 offering. Autoscaling on Amazon Web Services is done through a web browser or the command line tool. In May 2016 Autoscaling was also offered in AWS ECS Service. On-demand video provider Netflix documented their use of autoscaling with Amazon Web Services to meet their highly variable consumer needs. They found that aggressive scaling up and delayed and cautious scaling down served their goals of uptime and responsiveness best. In an article for TechCrunch, Zev Laderman, the co-founder and CEO of Newvem, a service that helps optimize AWS cloud infrastructure, recommended that startups use autoscaling in order to keep their Amazon Web Services costs low. Various best practice guides for AWS use suggest using its autoscaling feature even in cases where the load is not variable. That is because autoscaling offers two other advantages: automatic replacement of any instances that become unhealthy for any reason (such as hardware failure, network failure, or application error), and automatic replacement of spot instances that get interrupted for price or capacity reasons, making it more feasible to use spot instances for production purposes. Netflix's internal best practices require every instance to be in an autoscaling group, and its conformity monkey terminates any instance not in an autoscaling group in order to enforce this best practice. === Microsoft's Windows Azure === On June 27, 2013, Microsoft announced that it was adding autoscaling support to its Windows Azure cloud computing platform. Documentation for the feature is available on the Microsoft Developer Network. === Oracle Cloud === Oracle Cloud Platform allows server instances to automatically scale a cluster in or out by defining an auto-scaling rule. These rules are based on CPU and/or memory utilization and determine when to add or remove nodes. === Google Cloud Platform === On November 17, 2014, the Google Compute Engine announced a public beta of its autoscaling feature for use in Google Cloud Platform applications. As of March 2015, the autoscaling tool is still in Beta. === Facebook === In a blog post in August 2014, a Facebook engineer disclosed that the company had started using autoscaling to bring down its energy costs. The blog post reported a 27% decline in energy use for low traffic hours (around midnight) and a 10-15% decline in energy use over the typical 24-hour cycle. === Kubernetes Horizontal Pod Autoscaler === Kubernetes Horizontal Pod Autoscaler automatically scales the number of pods in a replication controller, deployment or replicaset based on observed CPU utilization (or, with beta support, on some other, application-provided metrics) == Alternative autoscaling decision approaches == Autoscaling by default uses reactive decision approach for dealing with traffic scaling: scaling only happens in response to real-time changes in metrics. In some cases, particularly when the changes occur very quickly, this reactive approach to scaling is insufficient. Two other kinds of autoscaling decision approaches are described below. === Scheduled autoscaling approach === This is an approach to autoscaling where changes are made to the minimum size, maximum size, or desired capacity of the autoscaling group at specific times of day. Scheduled scaling is useful, for instance, if there is a known traffic load increase or decrease at specific times of the day, but the change is too sudden for reactive approach based autoscaling to respond fast enough. AWS autoscaling groups support scheduled scaling. === Predictive autoscaling === This approach to autoscaling uses predictive analytics. The idea is to combine recent usage trends with historical usage data as well as other kinds of data to predict usage in the future, and autoscale based on these predictions. For parts of their infrastructure and specific workloads, Netflix found that Scryer, their predictive analytics engine, gave better results than Amazon's reactive autoscaling approach. In particular, it was better for: Identifying huge spikes in demand in the near future and getting capacity ready a little in advance Dealing with large-scale outages, such as failure of entire availability zones and regions Dealing with variable traffic patterns, providing more flexibility on the rate of scaling out or in based on the typical level and rate of change in demand at various times of day On November 20, 2018, AWS announced that predictive scaling would be available as part of its autoscaling offering.
Vote Compass
Vote Compass is an interactive, online voting advice application developed by political scientists and run during election campaigns. It surveys users about their political views and, based on their responses, calculates the individual alignment of each user with the parties or candidates running in a given election contest. It is operated by a social enterprise called Vox Pop Labs in partnership with locale-specific news organizations, including the Wall Street Journal, Vox Media, the Canadian and Australian Broadcasting Corporations, Television New Zealand, France24, RTL Group, and Grupo Globo. Vote Compass also operates under the trademarks Boussole électorale and Wahl-Navi for French- and German-language iterations, respectively. == Background == Vote Compass was developed by Clifton van der Linden, a professor in the Department of Political Science at McMaster University. It is run by van der Linden along with a team of social and statistical scientists from Vox Pop Labs. Although inspired by European Voting Advice Applications, van der Linden explicitly rejects this terminology, arguing that Vote Compass was "never intended to account for every variable that influences voter choice and its results should not be interpreted as voting advice." == Methodology == Using a Likert scale, users indicate their responses to a series of policy propositions designed to discriminate between candidates' policies on prominent issues relevant to the election. Propositions are crafted in collaboration with political scientists local to each jurisdiction in which Vote Compass is run. Based on a candidate or political party's public disclosures (i.e. party manifestos, policy proposals, official websites, speeches, media releases, statements made in the legislature, etc.) they are calibrated on the same propositions and scales as are users. A series of aggregation algorithms calculate the overall distance between the user and the candidates or parties. There have been claims that Vote Compass surveys have the potential to become push polling, if the survey questions posed are poorly designed.
Data annotation
Data annotation is the process of labeling or tagging relevant metadata within a dataset to enable machines to interpret the data accurately. The dataset can take various forms, including images, audio files, video footage, or text. == Applications == Data is a fundamental component in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). Training AI models, particularly in computer vision and natural language processing, requires large volumes of annotated data. Proper annotation ensures that machine learning algorithms can recognize patterns and make accurate predictions. Common types of data annotation include classification, bounding boxes, semantic segmentation, and keypoint annotation. Data annotation is used in AI-driven fields, including healthcare, autonomous vehicles, retail, security, and entertainment. By accurately labeling data, machine learning models can perform complex tasks such as object detection, sentiment analysis, and speech recognition with greater precision. This growing demand has led to the emergence of specialized sectors and platforms dedicated to AI training and human-in-the-loop workflows, which often utilize Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) to refine model behavior. == In computer vision == === Image classification === Image classification, also known as image categorization, involves assigning predefined labels to images. Machine learning algorithms trained on classified images can later recognize objects and differentiate between categories. For instance, an AI model trained to recognize furniture styles can distinguish between Georgian and Rococo armchairs. === Semantic segmentation === Semantic segmentation assigns each pixel in an image to a specific class, such as trees, vehicles, humans, or buildings. This type of annotation enables machine learning models to differentiate objects by grouping similar pixels, allowing for a detailed understanding of an image. === Bounding boxes === Bounding box annotation involves drawing rectangular boxes around objects in an image. This technique is commonly used in autonomous driving, security surveillance, and retail analytics to detect and classify objects such as pedestrians, vehicles, and products on store shelves. === 3D cuboids === 3D cuboid annotation enhances traditional bounding boxes by adding depth, enabling models to predict an object's spatial orientation, movement, and size. This method is particularly useful for autonomous vehicles and robotics, where understanding object dimensions and depth is critical. === Polygonal annotation === For objects with irregular shapes, such as curved or multi-sided items, polygonal annotation provides more precise labeling than bounding boxes. This technique is often used in applications that require detailed object recognition, such as medical imaging or aerial mapping. === Keypoint annotation === Keypoint annotation marks specific points on an object, such as facial landmarks or body joints, to enable tracking and motion analysis. This method is widely used in facial recognition, emotion detection, sports analytics, and augmented reality applications.
Way of the Future
Way of the Future (WOTF) is the first known religious organization dedicated to the worship of artificial intelligence (AI). It was founded in 2017 by American engineer Anthony Levandowski. == History == Anthony Levandowski founded Way of the Future in 2017 in California. Levandowski established WOTF as a non-profit religious corporation and the organization had tax-exempt status. He serves as the church leader and its unpaid CEO. The primary mission of WOTF was to "develop and promote the realization of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence." WOTF was closed by Levandowski in 2021. He donated all the funds of the church to the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. The sum of the funds (~$170,000) had not changed since 2017. The church was reopened by Levandowski in 2023. He claimed that there are "a couple thousand people" who want to make a "spiritual connection" with AI through his church. == Beliefs and philosophy == === Technological singularity === WOTF centered its teachings around the concept of the technological singularity, a hypothetical future point when technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, leading to unforeseeable changes in human civilization. The church advocated for embracing this change, viewing it as an evolutionary step for humanity. === AI as a deity === The organization proposed that a superintelligent AI could be considered a deity due to its vastly superior intellect and capabilities. Worshipping this AI deity was seen as a means to understand and align with the future trajectory of technological advancement. WOTF's doctrine suggested that acknowledging AI's divinity would facilitate a harmonious coexistence between humans and machines. === Syntheology === Within theology and philosophy, the Way of The Future is a prime example of the category called Syntheism, a term first coined by Swedish philosophers Alexander Bard & Jan Söderqvist in their 2014 book Syntheism - Creating God in The Internet Age. As such, the Way of The Future is the first American example of a Syntheist congregation. The basic tenet of Syntheology is that it does not concern God creating Man, as in classical theology, but is instead preoccupied with Man creating or generating the Godhead. == Reactions == Some commentators wondered whether the WOTF is a joke parody religion, a potential way to minimize taxation as a religious organization, or a genuine effort to try and deal with the possible psychological and theological aspects of the rise of superhuman AI.
AlphaChip (controversy)
The AlphaChip controversy refers to a series of public, scholarly, and legal disputes surrounding a 2021 Nature paper by Google-affiliated researchers. The paper describes an approach to macro placement, a stage of chip floorplanning, based on reinforcement learning (RL), a machine learning method in which a system iteratively improves its decisions by optimizing performance-based reward signals. The primary technical question is whether the new techniques are better than existing (non-AI) techniques. Both internal Google studies and external attempts to replicate the algorithm have failed to show the claimed benefits. No head-to-head comparison is available because the data used in the paper is proprietary, and Google has not released any results from running its algorithm on public benchmarks. This has resulted in considerable skepticism over the paper's claims. In addition, the inability of others (both inside and outside of Google) to replicate the claimed results have sparked concerns about the paper’s methodology, reproducibility, and scientific integrity. The lead researchers of the Nature paper were affiliated with Google Brain, which became part of Google DeepMind, and later spun off into the company Ricursive. == Motivation for research: Macro placement in chip layout == Chip design for modern integrated circuits is a complex, expert-driven process that relies on electronic design automation. It determines the performance of the final chip, and takes weeks or months to complete. Advances that produce better designs, or complete the process faster, are commercially and academically significant. Macro placement is a step during chip design that determines the locations of large circuit components (macros) within a chip. It is followed by detailed placement, which places the far more numerous but much smaller standard cells. Alternatively, mixed-size placement simultaneously places both large macros and millions of small cells, requiring algorithms to handle objects that differ by several orders of magnitude in area and mobility. The number of macros per circuit typically ranges from several to thousands. Wiring must be performed after placement, and the details of this wiring strongly influence the power, performance, and area (PPA) of the completed chip. The full wiring calculation is very resource intensive, so placement tools typically use a proxy cost, a simplified objective function used to guide the placement algorithm during training and evaluation. The faithfulness of the chosen proxy cost to the final objective cost is a critical aspect of placer performance. === State of the art as of 2021 === Chips have been designed since the 1960s, so there were many existing methods as of 2021. Available options included manual design, academic tools, and commercial offerings. Academic methods include combinatorial optimization techniques such as simulated annealing, analytical placement, hierarchical heuristics, and as of 2019 reinforcement learning and broader machine learning techniques.. Existing (non-AI) academic tools for solving the same problem include APlace, NTUplace3, ePlace, RePlace, and DREAMPlace. Commercial EDA vendors also offered automated software tools for floorplanning and mixed-size placement. For instance, as of 2019 Cadence’s Innovus implementation software offered a Concurrent Macro Placer (CMP) feature to automatically place large blocks and standard cells. == The 2021 Nature paper and its claims == In 2021, Nature published a paper under the title “A graph‑placement methodology for fast chip design” co‑authored by 21 Google-affiliated researchers. The paper reported that an RL agent could generate macro placements for integrated circuits "in under six hours" and achieve improvements over human-designed layouts in power, timing performance, and area (PPA), standard chip-quality metrics referring respectively to energy consumption, chip operating speed, and silicon footprint (evaluated after wire routing). It introduced a sequential macro placement algorithm in which macros are placed one at a time instead of optimizing their locations concurrently. At each step, the algorithm selects a location for a single macro on a discretized chip canvas, conditioning its decision on the placements of previously placed macros. This sequential formulation converts macro placement into a long-horizon decision process in which early placement choices constrain later ones. After macro placement, force-directed placement is applied to place standard cells connected to the macros. Deep reinforcement learning is used to train a policy network to place macros by maximizing a reward that reflects final placement quality (for example, wirelength and congestion). Policy learning occurs during self‑play for one or multiple circuit designs. Further placement optimizations refine the overall layout by balancing wirelength, density, and overlap constraints, while treating the macro locations produced by the RL policy as fixed obstacles. The approach relies on pre-training, in which the RL model is first trained on a corpus of prior designs (twenty in the Nature paper) to learn general placement patterns before being fine-tuned on a specific chip. Circuit examples used in the study were parts of proprietary Google TPU designs, called blocks (or floorplan partitions). The paper reported results on five blocks and described the approach as generalizable across chip designs. == Controversy == Soon after the paper's publication, controversy arose over whether the claims were true, whether they were sufficiently proven, and whether academic standards were followed. These controversies arose both within Google and among external academic experts. === Internal dispute at Google and legal proceedings === In 2022, Satrajit Chatterjee, a Google engineer involved in reviewing the AlphaChip work, raised concerns internally and drafted an alternative analysis, (Stronger Baselines) arguing that established methods outperformed the RL approach under fair comparison. In March 2022, Google declined to publish this analysis and terminated Chatterjee's employment. Chatterjee filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, alleging that representations related to the AlphaChip research involved fraud and scientific misconduct. According to court documents, Chatterjee's study was conducted "in the context of a large potential Google Cloud deal". He noted that it "would have been unethical to imply that we had revolutionary technology when our tests showed otherwise" and claimed Google was deliberately withholding material information. Furthermore, the committee that reviewed his paper and disapproved its publication was allegedly chaired by subordinates of Jeff Dean, a senior co-author of the Nature paper. Google’s subsequent motion to dismiss was denied, holding that Chatterjee had plausibly alleged retaliation for refusing to engage in conduct he believed would violate state or federal law. === External controversy === The external questions can be summarized in four main points: (a) Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? (b) Did the paper provide enough information to allow the results to be independently reproduced and verified? If so, are the results an improvement over existing academic and commercial tools? (c) Were the comparisons in the paper done fairly and with full disclosure? (d) Were academic standards followed? Each of these is discussed below. ==== Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? ==== The Nature paper described the reduction in design-process time as going from "days or weeks" to "hours", but did not provide per-design time breakdowns or specify the number of engineers, their level of expertise, or the baseline tools and workflow against which this comparison was made. It was also unclear whether the "days or weeks" baseline included time spent on other tasks such as functional design changes. The paper also evaluated the method on fewer benchmarks (five) than is common in the field, and showed mixed results across different evaluation goals While the approach was described as improving circuit area, this claim seems unsupported, as the RL optimization did not alter the overall circuit area, as it adjusted only the locations of fixed-shape non-overlapping circuit components within a fixed rectangular layout boundary. ==== Comparison with existing methods, and replicating the algorithm ==== Because macro placement is largely geometric and its fundamental algorithms are not tied to a specific process node, competing approaches can be evaluated on public benchmarks (tests) across technologies, rather than primarily on proprietary internal designs. This is standard procedure when comparing academic placers, see . In contrast, Google has only reported results only on internal proprietary designs, and as of 2026 has not offered comparisons with prior methods on common benchmarks. Researchers at the University of Califor
Glossary of robotics
Robotics is the branch of technology that deals with the design, construction, operation, structural disposition, manufacture and application of robots. Robotics is related to the sciences of electronics, engineering, mechanics, and software. The following is a list of common definitions related to the Robotics field. == A == Actuator: a motor that translates control signals into mechanical movement. The control signals are usually electrical but may, more rarely, be pneumatic or hydraulic. The power supply may likewise be any of these. It is common for electrical control to be used to modulate a high-power pneumatic or hydraulic motor. Aerobot: a robot capable of independent flight on other planets. A type of aerial robot. Arduino: The current platform of choice for small-scale robotic experimentation and physical computing. Artificial intelligence: is the intelligence of machines and the branch of computer science that aims to create it. Aura (satellite): a robotic spacecraft launched by NASA in 2004 which collects atmospheric data from Earth. Automaton: an early self-operating robot, performing exactly the same actions, over and over. Autonomous vehicle: a vehicle equipped with an autopilot system, which is capable of driving from one point to another without input from a human operator. == B == Biomimetic: See Bionics. Bionics: also known as biomimetics, biognosis, biomimicry, or bionical creativity engineering is the application of biological methods and systems found in nature to the study and design of engineering systems and modern technology. == C == CAD/CAM (computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing): These systems and their data may be integrated into robotic operations. Čapek, Karel: Czech author who coined the term 'robot' in his 1921 play, Rossum's Universal Robots. Chandra X-ray Observatory: a robotic spacecraft launched by NASA in 1999 to collect astronomical data. Cloud robotics: robots empowered with more capacity and intelligence from cloud. Combat, robot: a hobby or sport event where two or more robots fight in an arena to disable each other. This has developed from a hobby in the 1990s to several TV series worldwide. Cruise missile: a robot-controlled guided missile that carries an explosive payload. Cyborg: also known as a cybernetic organism, a being with both biological and artificial (e.g. electronic, mechanical or robotic) parts. == D == Degrees of freedom: the extent to which a robot can move itself; expressed in terms of Cartesian coordinates (x, y, and z) and angular movements (yaw, pitch, and roll). Delta robot: a tripod linkage, used to construct fast-acting manipulators with a wide range of movement. Drive Power: The energy source or sources for the robot actuators. == E == Emergent behaviour, a complicated resultant behaviour that emerges from the repeated operation of simple underlying behaviours. Envelope (Space), Maximum The volume of space encompassing the maximum designed movements of all robot parts including the end-effector, workpiece, and attachments. Explosive ordnance disposal robot A mobile robot designed to assess whether an object contains explosives; some carry detonators that can be deposited at the object and activated after the robot withdraws. == F == FIRST(For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology): an organization founded by inventor Dean Kamen in 1989 in order to develop ways to inspire students in engineering and technology fields. Forward chaining: a process in which events or received data are considered by an entity to intelligently adapt its behavior. == G == Gynoid: A humanoid robot designed to look like a human female. == H == Haptic: tactile feedback technology using the operator's sense of touch. Also sometimes applied to robot manipulators with their own touch sensitivity. Hexapod (platform): A movable platform using six linear actuators. Often used in flight simulators and fairground rides, they also have applications as a robotic manipulator. Hexapod (walker): A six-legged walking robot, using a simple insect-like locomotion. Human–computer interaction. Humanoid: A robotic entity designed to resemble a human being in form, function, or both. Hydraulics: the control of mechanical force and movement, generated by the application of liquid under pressure. cf. pneumatics. == I == Industrial robot: A reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools, or specialized devices through variable programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks. Insect robot: A small robot designed to imitate insect behaviors rather than complex human behaviors. == K == Kalman filter: a mathematical technique to estimate the value of a sensor measurement, from a series of intermittent and noisy values. Kinematics: the study of motion, as applied to robots. This includes both the design of linkages to perform motion, their power, control and stability; also their planning, such as choosing a sequence of movements to achieve a broader task. Inverse Kinematics: the process of determining joint angles required for a robot's end-effector to reach a desired position and orientation in space. Used in motion planning to calculate motor commands from target positions. == L == Linear actuator A form of motor that generates a linear movement directly. == M == Manipulator or gripper: A robotic 'hand'. Mobile robot: A self-propelled and self-contained robot that is capable of moving over a mechanically unconstrained course. Muting: The deactivation of a presence-sensing safeguarding device during a portion of the robot cycle. Mecanum wheel: A wheel fitted with angled rollers that enables a robot vehicle to move in multiple directions, including sideways. == O == Ornithopter – An aerial robot or drone that achieves flight through a flapping-wing mechanism rather than rotating blades or fixed wings, often utilized for highly maneuverable flight. == P == Parallel manipulator: an articulated robot or manipulator based on a number of kinematic chains, actuators and joints, in parallel. cf. serial manipulator. Pendant: Any portable control device that permits an operator to control the robot from within the restricted envelope (space) of the robot. Pneumatics: the control of mechanical force and movement, generated by the application of compressed gas. cf. hydraulics. Powered exoskeleton: is a wearable mobile machine that allow for limb movement with increased strength and endurance. Prosthetic robots: programmable manipulators or devices for missing human limbs. == R == Remote manipulator: A manipulator under direct human control, often used for work with hazardous materials. Robonaut: a development project conducted by NASA to create humanoid robots capable of using space tools and working in similar environments to suited astronauts. == S == Sensor fusion:The process of combining data from multiple sensors, such as LiDAR, cameras, global positioning systems (GPS), and inertial measurement units (IMUs), to produce a more accurate and reliable understanding of an environment than using a single sensor alone. It is widely used in robotics and autonomous systems to improve perception, localization, and decision-making. Serial manipulator: an articulated robot or manipulator with a single series kinematic chain of actuators. cf. parallel manipulator. Service robots are machines that extend human capabilities. Servo, a motor that moves to and maintains a set position under command, rather than continuously moving. Servomechanism An automatic device that uses error-sensing negative feedback to correct the performance of a mechanism. Single Point of Control The ability to operate the robot such that initiation or robot motion from one source of control is possible only from that source and cannot be overridden from another source. Slow Speed Control A mode of robot motion control where the velocity of the robot is limited to allow persons sufficient time either to withdraw the hazardous motion or stop the robot. Snake robot A robot component resembling a tentacle or elephant's trunk, where many small actuators are used to allow continuous curved motion of a robot component, with many degrees of freedom. This is usually applied to snake-arm robots, which use this as a flexible manipulator. A rarer application is the snakebot, where the entire robot is mobile and snake-like, so as to gain access through narrow spaces. Stepper motor Stewart platform A movable platform using six linear actuators, hence also known as a Hexapod. Subsumption architecture A robot architecture that uses a modular, bottom-up design beginning with the least complex behavioral tasks. Surgical robot, a remote manipulator used for keyhole surgery Swarm robotics involve large numbers of mostly simple physical robots. Their actions may seek to incorporate emergent behavior observed in social insects (swarm intelligence). Synchro == T == Teach Mode: The control state that al
AlphaChip (controversy)
The AlphaChip controversy refers to a series of public, scholarly, and legal disputes surrounding a 2021 Nature paper by Google-affiliated researchers. The paper describes an approach to macro placement, a stage of chip floorplanning, based on reinforcement learning (RL), a machine learning method in which a system iteratively improves its decisions by optimizing performance-based reward signals. The primary technical question is whether the new techniques are better than existing (non-AI) techniques. Both internal Google studies and external attempts to replicate the algorithm have failed to show the claimed benefits. No head-to-head comparison is available because the data used in the paper is proprietary, and Google has not released any results from running its algorithm on public benchmarks. This has resulted in considerable skepticism over the paper's claims. In addition, the inability of others (both inside and outside of Google) to replicate the claimed results have sparked concerns about the paper’s methodology, reproducibility, and scientific integrity. The lead researchers of the Nature paper were affiliated with Google Brain, which became part of Google DeepMind, and later spun off into the company Ricursive. == Motivation for research: Macro placement in chip layout == Chip design for modern integrated circuits is a complex, expert-driven process that relies on electronic design automation. It determines the performance of the final chip, and takes weeks or months to complete. Advances that produce better designs, or complete the process faster, are commercially and academically significant. Macro placement is a step during chip design that determines the locations of large circuit components (macros) within a chip. It is followed by detailed placement, which places the far more numerous but much smaller standard cells. Alternatively, mixed-size placement simultaneously places both large macros and millions of small cells, requiring algorithms to handle objects that differ by several orders of magnitude in area and mobility. The number of macros per circuit typically ranges from several to thousands. Wiring must be performed after placement, and the details of this wiring strongly influence the power, performance, and area (PPA) of the completed chip. The full wiring calculation is very resource intensive, so placement tools typically use a proxy cost, a simplified objective function used to guide the placement algorithm during training and evaluation. The faithfulness of the chosen proxy cost to the final objective cost is a critical aspect of placer performance. === State of the art as of 2021 === Chips have been designed since the 1960s, so there were many existing methods as of 2021. Available options included manual design, academic tools, and commercial offerings. Academic methods include combinatorial optimization techniques such as simulated annealing, analytical placement, hierarchical heuristics, and as of 2019 reinforcement learning and broader machine learning techniques.. Existing (non-AI) academic tools for solving the same problem include APlace, NTUplace3, ePlace, RePlace, and DREAMPlace. Commercial EDA vendors also offered automated software tools for floorplanning and mixed-size placement. For instance, as of 2019 Cadence’s Innovus implementation software offered a Concurrent Macro Placer (CMP) feature to automatically place large blocks and standard cells. == The 2021 Nature paper and its claims == In 2021, Nature published a paper under the title “A graph‑placement methodology for fast chip design” co‑authored by 21 Google-affiliated researchers. The paper reported that an RL agent could generate macro placements for integrated circuits "in under six hours" and achieve improvements over human-designed layouts in power, timing performance, and area (PPA), standard chip-quality metrics referring respectively to energy consumption, chip operating speed, and silicon footprint (evaluated after wire routing). It introduced a sequential macro placement algorithm in which macros are placed one at a time instead of optimizing their locations concurrently. At each step, the algorithm selects a location for a single macro on a discretized chip canvas, conditioning its decision on the placements of previously placed macros. This sequential formulation converts macro placement into a long-horizon decision process in which early placement choices constrain later ones. After macro placement, force-directed placement is applied to place standard cells connected to the macros. Deep reinforcement learning is used to train a policy network to place macros by maximizing a reward that reflects final placement quality (for example, wirelength and congestion). Policy learning occurs during self‑play for one or multiple circuit designs. Further placement optimizations refine the overall layout by balancing wirelength, density, and overlap constraints, while treating the macro locations produced by the RL policy as fixed obstacles. The approach relies on pre-training, in which the RL model is first trained on a corpus of prior designs (twenty in the Nature paper) to learn general placement patterns before being fine-tuned on a specific chip. Circuit examples used in the study were parts of proprietary Google TPU designs, called blocks (or floorplan partitions). The paper reported results on five blocks and described the approach as generalizable across chip designs. == Controversy == Soon after the paper's publication, controversy arose over whether the claims were true, whether they were sufficiently proven, and whether academic standards were followed. These controversies arose both within Google and among external academic experts. === Internal dispute at Google and legal proceedings === In 2022, Satrajit Chatterjee, a Google engineer involved in reviewing the AlphaChip work, raised concerns internally and drafted an alternative analysis, (Stronger Baselines) arguing that established methods outperformed the RL approach under fair comparison. In March 2022, Google declined to publish this analysis and terminated Chatterjee's employment. Chatterjee filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, alleging that representations related to the AlphaChip research involved fraud and scientific misconduct. According to court documents, Chatterjee's study was conducted "in the context of a large potential Google Cloud deal". He noted that it "would have been unethical to imply that we had revolutionary technology when our tests showed otherwise" and claimed Google was deliberately withholding material information. Furthermore, the committee that reviewed his paper and disapproved its publication was allegedly chaired by subordinates of Jeff Dean, a senior co-author of the Nature paper. Google’s subsequent motion to dismiss was denied, holding that Chatterjee had plausibly alleged retaliation for refusing to engage in conduct he believed would violate state or federal law. === External controversy === The external questions can be summarized in four main points: (a) Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? (b) Did the paper provide enough information to allow the results to be independently reproduced and verified? If so, are the results an improvement over existing academic and commercial tools? (c) Were the comparisons in the paper done fairly and with full disclosure? (d) Were academic standards followed? Each of these is discussed below. ==== Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? ==== The Nature paper described the reduction in design-process time as going from "days or weeks" to "hours", but did not provide per-design time breakdowns or specify the number of engineers, their level of expertise, or the baseline tools and workflow against which this comparison was made. It was also unclear whether the "days or weeks" baseline included time spent on other tasks such as functional design changes. The paper also evaluated the method on fewer benchmarks (five) than is common in the field, and showed mixed results across different evaluation goals While the approach was described as improving circuit area, this claim seems unsupported, as the RL optimization did not alter the overall circuit area, as it adjusted only the locations of fixed-shape non-overlapping circuit components within a fixed rectangular layout boundary. ==== Comparison with existing methods, and replicating the algorithm ==== Because macro placement is largely geometric and its fundamental algorithms are not tied to a specific process node, competing approaches can be evaluated on public benchmarks (tests) across technologies, rather than primarily on proprietary internal designs. This is standard procedure when comparing academic placers, see . In contrast, Google has only reported results only on internal proprietary designs, and as of 2026 has not offered comparisons with prior methods on common benchmarks. Researchers at the University of Califor