Dimensionality reduction, or dimension reduction, is the transformation of data from a high-dimensional space into a low-dimensional space so that the low-dimensional representation retains some meaningful properties of the original data, ideally close to its intrinsic dimension. Working in high-dimensional spaces can be undesirable for many reasons; raw data are often sparse as a consequence of the curse of dimensionality, and analyzing the data is usually computationally intractable. Dimensionality reduction is common in fields that deal with large numbers of observations and/or large numbers of variables, such as signal processing, speech recognition, neuroinformatics, and bioinformatics. Methods are commonly divided into linear and nonlinear approaches. Linear approaches can be further divided into feature selection and feature extraction. Dimensionality reduction can be used for noise reduction, data visualization, cluster analysis, or as an intermediate step to facilitate other analyses. == Feature selection == The process of feature selection aims to find a suitable subset of the input variables (features, or attributes) for the task at hand. The three strategies are: the filter strategy (e.g., information gain), the wrapper strategy (e.g., accuracy-guided search), and the embedded strategy (features are added or removed while building the model based on prediction errors). Data analysis such as regression or classification can be done in the reduced space more accurately than in the original space. == Feature projection == Feature projection (also called feature extraction) transforms the data from the high-dimensional space to a space of fewer dimensions. The data transformation may be linear, as in principal component analysis (PCA), but many nonlinear dimensionality reduction techniques also exist. For multidimensional data, tensor representation can be used in dimensionality reduction through multilinear subspace learning. === Principal component analysis (PCA) === The main linear technique for dimensionality reduction, principal component analysis, performs a linear mapping of the data to a lower-dimensional space in such a way that the variance of the data in the low-dimensional representation is maximized. In practice, the covariance (and sometimes the correlation) matrix of the data is constructed and the eigenvectors on this matrix are computed. The eigenvectors that correspond to the largest eigenvalues (the principal components) can now be used to reconstruct a large fraction of the variance of the original data. Moreover, the first few eigenvectors can often be interpreted in terms of the large-scale physical behavior of the system, because they often contribute the vast majority of the system's energy, especially in low-dimensional systems. Still, this must be proved on a case-by-case basis as not all systems exhibit this behavior. The original space (with dimension of the number of points) has been reduced (with data loss, but hopefully retaining the most important variance) to the space spanned by a few eigenvectors. === Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) === NMF decomposes a non-negative matrix to the product of two non-negative ones, which has been a promising tool in fields where only non-negative signals exist, such as astronomy. NMF is well known since the multiplicative update rule by Lee & Seung, which has been continuously developed: the inclusion of uncertainties, the consideration of missing data and parallel computation, sequential construction which leads to the stability and linearity of NMF, as well as other updates including handling missing data in digital image processing. With a stable component basis during construction, and a linear modeling process, sequential NMF is able to preserve the flux in direct imaging of circumstellar structures in astronomy, as one of the methods of detecting exoplanets, especially for the direct imaging of circumstellar discs. In comparison with PCA, NMF does not remove the mean of the matrices, which leads to physical non-negative fluxes; therefore NMF is able to preserve more information than PCA as demonstrated by Ren et al. === Kernel PCA === Principal component analysis can be employed in a nonlinear way by means of the kernel trick. The resulting technique is capable of constructing nonlinear mappings that maximize the variance in the data. The resulting technique is called kernel PCA. === Graph-based kernel PCA === Other prominent nonlinear techniques include manifold learning techniques such as Isomap, locally linear embedding (LLE), Hessian LLE, Laplacian eigenmaps, and methods based on tangent space analysis. These techniques assume that the high-dimensional input data lies near a low-dimensional manifold embedded in the ambient space, and construct a low-dimensional representation using a cost function that retains local properties of the data; they can be viewed as defining a graph-based kernel for Kernel PCA. More recently, techniques have been proposed that, instead of defining a fixed kernel, try to learn the kernel using semidefinite programming. The most prominent example of such a technique is maximum variance unfolding (MVU). The central idea of MVU is to exactly preserve all pairwise distances between nearest neighbors (in the inner product space) while maximizing the distances between points that are not nearest neighbors. An alternative approach to neighborhood preservation is through the minimization of a cost function that measures differences between distances in the input and output spaces. Important examples of such techniques include: classical multidimensional scaling, which is identical to PCA; Isomap, which uses geodesic distances in the data space; diffusion maps, which use diffusion distances in the data space; t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE), which minimizes the divergence between distributions over pairs of points; and curvilinear component analysis. A different approach to nonlinear dimensionality reduction is through the use of autoencoders, a special kind of feedforward neural networks with a bottleneck hidden layer. The training of deep encoders is typically performed using a greedy layer-wise pre-training (e.g., using a stack of restricted Boltzmann machines) that is followed by a finetuning stage based on backpropagation. === Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) === Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) is a generalization of Fisher's linear discriminant, a method used in statistics, pattern recognition, and machine learning to find a linear combination of features that characterizes or separates two or more classes of objects or events. === Generalized discriminant analysis (GDA) === GDA deals with nonlinear discriminant analysis using kernel function operator. The underlying theory is close to the support-vector machines (SVM) insofar as the GDA method provides a mapping of the input vectors into high-dimensional feature space. Similar to LDA, the objective of GDA is to find a projection for the features into a lower dimensional space by maximizing the ratio of between-class scatter to within-class scatter. === Autoencoder === Autoencoders can be used to learn nonlinear dimension reduction functions and codings together with an inverse function from the coding to the original representation. === t-SNE === T-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE) is a nonlinear dimensionality reduction technique useful for the visualization of high-dimensional datasets. It is not recommended for use in analysis such as clustering or outlier detection since it does not necessarily preserve densities or distances well. === UMAP === Uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) is a nonlinear dimensionality reduction technique. Visually, it is similar to t-SNE, but it assumes that the data is uniformly distributed on a locally connected Riemannian manifold and that the Riemannian metric is locally constant or approximately locally constant. == Dimension reduction == For high-dimensional datasets, dimension reduction is usually performed prior to applying a k-nearest neighbors (k-NN) algorithm in order to mitigate the curse of dimensionality. Feature extraction and dimension reduction can be combined in one step, using principal component analysis (PCA), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), canonical correlation analysis (CCA), or non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) techniques to pre-process the data, followed by clustering via k-NN on feature vectors in a reduced-dimension space. In machine learning, this process is also called low-dimensional embedding. For high-dimensional datasets (e.g., when performing similarity search on live video streams, DNA data, or high-dimensional time series), running a fast approximate k-NN search using locality-sensitive hashing, random projection, "sketches", or other high-dimensional similarity search techniques from the VLDB conference toolbox may be the only fe
Pronunciation assessment
Automatic pronunciation assessment uses computer speech recognition to determine how accurately speech has been pronounced, instead of relying on a human instructor or proctor. It is also called speech verification, pronunciation evaluation, and pronunciation scoring. This technology is used to grade speech quality, for language testing, for computer-aided pronunciation teaching (CAPT) in computer-assisted language learning (CALL), for speaking skill remediation, and for accent reduction. Pronunciation assessment is different from dictation or automatic transcription, because instead of determining unknown speech, it verifies learners' pronunciation of known word(s), often from prior transcription of the same utterance; ideally scoring the intelligibility of the learners' speech. Sometimes pronunciation assessment evaluates the prosody of the learners' speech, such as intonation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, and syllable and word stress, although those are usually not essential for being understood in most languages. Pronunciation assessment is also used in reading tutoring, for example in products from Google, Microsoft, and Amira Learning. Automatic pronunciation assessment can also be used to help diagnose and treat speech disorders such as apraxia. == Intelligibility == Intelligibility refers to how well a learner's utterance is understood by a listener, rather than how much it sounds like a native speaker. This is separate from measures of fluency, such as so-called "Goodness of Pronunciation" (GoP) scores, which estimate how closely an utterance aligns with those of native speakers. Intelligibility is widely regarded as the most important communicative goal in pronunciation teaching and assessment. For example, in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) assessment criteria for "overall phonological control", intelligibility outweighs formally correct pronunciation at all levels. Studies in applied linguistics have shown that accent reduction does not always increase intelligibility because listeners can often comprehend heavily accented speech without difficulty. Pronunciation assessment systems often rely on acoustic methods such as GoP which compare learner speech to reference models to produce phoneme-level scores, which are in turn aggregated to produce word and phrase scores. While these methods are effective for identifying deviations from native speakers' utterances, they do not effectively measure how understandable speech is to human listeners. Intelligibility is influenced by broader linguistic and contextual factors such as stress placement, speech rate, and coarticulation, which are not represented in purely segmental scores. The earliest work on pronunciation assessment avoided measuring genuine listener intelligibility, a shortcoming corrected in 2011 at the Toyohashi University of Technology, and included in the Versant high-stakes English fluency assessment from Pearson and mobile apps from 17zuoye Education & Technology, but still missing in 2023 products from Google Search, Microsoft, Educational Testing Service, Speechace, and ELSA. Assessing authentic listener intelligibility is essential for avoiding inaccuracies from accent bias, especially in high-stakes assessments; from words with multiple correct pronunciations; and from phoneme coding errors in machine-readable pronunciation dictionaries. In 2022, researchers found that some newer speech-to-text systems, based on end-to-end reinforcement learning to map audio signals directly into words, produce word and phrase confidence scores (from 10-25ms audio frame logit aggregation) closely correlated with genuine listener intelligibility. Others have been able to assess intelligibility using Levenshtein or dynamic time warping distance measures from Wav2Vec2 representation of good speech. Further work through 2025 has focused specifically on measuring intelligibility. A 2025 study of 42 pronunciation and speech coaching apps (32 mobile and 10 web) found that none offered intelligibility assessment. Instead, most provided only segmental and accent-focused scoring. About two-thirds of the apps provided some form of specific pronunciation feedback, usually with phonetic transcriptions, but accompanied by visual cues (such as animations of the vocal tract or the lips and tongue from the front) in only about 5% of the apps. Less than a third provided feedback on learner perception of exemplar speech. == Evaluation == Although there are as yet no industry-standard benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment accuracy, researchers occasionally release evaluation speech corpuses for others to use for improving assessment quality. Such evaluation databases often emphasize formally unaccented pronunciation to the exclusion of genuine intelligibility evident from blinded listener transcriptions. As of mid-2025, state of the art approaches for automatically transcribing phonemes typically achieve an error rate of about 10% from known good speech. The International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) 2025 Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE) administered a Speak & Improve Challenge: Spoken Language Assessment and Feedback, introducing benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment and remediation systems across languages, accents, and learner populations. The challenge emphasized cross-lingual generalization and alignment with human intelligibility judgments, for more robust and interpretable assessment systems. Ethical issues in pronunciation assessment are present in both human and automatic methods. Authentic validity, fairness, and mitigating bias in evaluation are all crucial. Diverse speech data should be included in automatic pronunciation assessment models. Combining human judgments, especially blinded transcriptions from a wide diversity of listeners, with automated feedback can improve accuracy and fairness. Second language learners benefit substantially from their use of widely available speech recognition systems for dictation, virtual assistants, and AI chatbots. In such systems, users naturally try to correct their own errors evident in speech recognition results that they notice. Such use improves their grammar and vocabulary development along with their pronunciation skills. The extent to which explicit pronunciation assessment and remediation approaches improve on such self-directed interactions remains an open question. Similarly, automatic dictation results have been shown to reflect intelligibility about as well as human scorers. == Recent developments == During 2021–22, a smartphone-based CAPT system was used to sense articulation through both audible and inaudible signals, providing feedback at the phoneme level. Some promising areas for improvement which were being developed in 2024 include articulatory feature extraction and transfer learning to suppress unnecessary corrections. Other interesting advances under development include "augmented reality" interfaces for mobile devices using optical character recognition to provide pronunciation training on text found in user environments. In 2024, audio multimodal large language models were first described as assessing pronunciation. That work has been carried forward by other researchers in 2025 who report positive results. Subsequently, researchers demonstrated pronunciation scoring by providing a language model with textual descriptions of speech, including the speech-to-text transcript, phoneme sequences, pauses, and phoneme sequence matching; this approach can achieve performance similar to multimodal LLMs that analyze raw audio while avoiding their higher computational cost. In 2025, the Duolingo English Test authors published a description of their pronunciation assessment method, purportedly built to measure intelligibility rather than accent imitation. While achieving a correlation of 0.82 with expert human ratings, very close to inter-rater agreement and outperforming alternative methods, the method is nonetheless based on experts' scores along the six-point CEFR common reference levels scale, instead of actual blinded listener transcriptions. Further promising work in 2025 includes assessment feedback aligning learner speech to synthetic utterances using interpretable features, identifying continuous spans of words for remediation feedback; synthesizing corrected speech matching learners' self-perceived voices, which they prefer and imitate more accurately as corrections; and streaming such interactions. On January 21, 2026, Educational Testing Service's TOEFL iBT high-stakes English language test, required by US university admissions and employers from English as a foreign language applicants more often than all other internet-based tests combined, changed its speaking assessments. While official rubrics claim that the new scoring will be based primarily on intelligibility, the new test's technical description indicates that it ju
Nolot
Nolot is a chess test suite with 11 positions from real games. They were compiled by Pierre Nolot (French: [nɔ.lo]) for the French chess magazine Gambisco and posted on the rec.games.chess Usenet group in 1994. They were designed to be particularly hard to solve for chess engines to solve at the time, although modern engines can find a solution near-instantaneously. == Problem 1 == FEN: r3qb1k/1b4p1/p2pr2p/3n4/Pnp1N1N1/6RP/1B3PP1/1B1QR1K1 w - - 0 1 26.Nxh6!! c3 (26... Rxh6 27.Nxd6 Qh5 (best) 28.Rg5! Qxd1 29.Nf7+ Kg8 30.Nxh6+ Kh8 31.Rxd1 c3 32.Nf7+ Kg8 33.Bg6! Nf4 34.Bxc3 Nxg6 35.Bxb4 Kxf7 36.Rd7+ Kf6 37.Rxg6+ Kxg6 38.Rxb7 ±) 27.Nf5! cxb2 28.Qg4 Bc8 (28... g6!? 29.Kh2! 29.Qd7 30.Nh4 Bc6 31.Nc5! dxc 32.Rxe6 Nf6 33.Nxg6+ Kg7 34.Qg5 Nbd5 35.Ne5 Kh8 36.Nxd7 ±) 29.Qh4+ Rh6 30.Nxh6 gxh6 31.Kh2! Qe5 32.Ng5 Qf6 33.Re8 Bf5 34.Qxh6 (missing a mate in 6: 34.Nf7+ Qxf7 35.Qxh6+ Bh7 36.Rxa8 Nf6 37.Rxf8 Qxf8 38.Qxf8+ Ng8 39.Qg7#) 34...Qxh6 35.Nf7+ Kh7 36.Bxf5+ Qg6 37.Bxg6+ Kg7 38.Rxa8 Be7 39.Rb8 a5 40.Be4+ Kxf7 41.Bxd5+ 1–0 The best Novag computer, the Diablo 68000, finds 26. Nxh6 after seven and a half months (Pierre Nolot has let it run on the position for 14 months and one day, until a power failure stopped an analysis of over 80,000,000,000 nodes.) but for wrong reasons: it evaluates white's position as inferior and thinks this move would enable it to draw. Today Gambit Tiger 2.0 for example can find it quite quickly: Most free engines running on 64-bit processors in 2010 could solve this problem and the others in a few seconds. 1.Qd4 c3 2.Bxc3 Nxc3 3.Qxb4 Nxe4 4.Qxb7 Rb8 5.Qxb8 Qxb8 6.Bxe4 d5 7.Rb1 μ (-1.20) Depth: 12 00:00:09 6055 kN 1.Nxh6 c3 2.Nf5 cxb2 3.Qg4 Rb8 4.Nxg7 Rg6 5.Qxg6 Qxg6 6.Rxg6 Bxg7 7.Nxd6 ³ (-0.48) Depth: 12 00:00:21 14368 kN 1.Nxh6 c3 2.Nf5 cxb2 3.Qg4 Rc8 4.Nxg7 Rg6 5.Nxe8 Rxg4 6.Rxg4 Rxe8 7.Rg6 μ (-0.74) Depth: 13 00:00:55 38455 kN 1.Ne3 Rxe4 2.Bxe4 Qxe4 3.Nxd5 Qxd5 4.Qc1 Qf5 5.Qxh6+ Qh7 6.Qe6 Nd3 7.Re2 Nxb2 8.Rxb2 ³ (-0.58) Depth: 13 00:01:30 62979 kN 1.Ne3 Rxe4 ³ (-0.58) Depth: 14 00:02:02 84941 kN 1.Ne3 Nxe3 2.Rexe3 Bxe4 3.Qg4 Rg6 4.Qxe4 Qxe4 5.Bxe4 Rxg3 6.Rxg3 d5 7.Bf5 Re8 8.Bc3 ³ (-0.30) Depth: 15 00:03:05 128968 kN 1.Nxh6 ² (0.32) Depth: 15 00:07:58 350813 kN With the next ply showing a clear advantage. Stockfish 14dev 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognises the significance of Nxh6!! in 1 second. Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2: NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 19/32 00:01 7708k 4882k +3,00 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Bg6 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ gxh6 Bh5+ Kh7 Rxd1 c3 Bxc3 Nxc3 Rd7+ Kh8 Rxb7 Ne4 Re3 Nxf2 Kxf2 Bc5 Ke2 Bxe3 Kxe3 Nd5+ Kf2 49/73 15:02 5118270k 5673k +6,15 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Rg5 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ Kh8 Rxd1 c3 Nf7+ Kg8 Bg6 Nf4 Bxc3 Nbd5 Rb1 Bc6 Bd2 Nxg6 Rxg6 Ne7 Rxc6 Nxc6 Rb6 Rc8 Ng5 a5 Ra6 Bb4 Be3 Ne5 Bd4 Nc6 Bb6 Bd2 h4 Kf8 Bc5+ Kg8 Be3 Bxe3 fxe3 Kf8 Kf2 Ke7 Nf3 Kd7 Rb6 Ne7 Rb5 Kd6 Rxa5 Rc2+ Kg3 Re2 Nd4 Rxe3+ Kf4 Rd3 Nf5+ Kc7 Nxe7 == Problem 2 == FEN: r4rk1/pp1n1p1p/1nqP2p1/2b1P1B1/4NQ2/1B3P2/PP2K2P/2R5 w - - 0 1 22.Rxc5!! Nxc5 23.Nf6+ Kh8 24.Qh4 Qb5+ (computers think there is perpetual check here, but...) 25.Ke3! 25... h5 26.Nxh5 Qxb3+ (26... d5+ 27.Bxd5 Qd3 28.Kf2 Ne4+ 29.Bxe4 Qd4+ 30.Kg2 Qxb2+ 31.Kh3 ±) and White won in 41 moves. Today Deep Junior 8.ZX for example finds it very quickly (around 1 minute): 1.Kd1 Rac8 2.Bh6 Qb5 3.Rc3 Qf1+ 4.Kc2 Rc6 5.Bxf8 −+ (-2.11) Depth: 12 00:00:04 10422 kN 1.Nxc5 Nxc5 2.Rxc5 Qxc5 3.e6 Rae8 4.e7 Nc8 5.Kf1 Nxd6 6.Bf6 b5 −+ (-2.10) Depth: 12 00:00:14 25054 kN 1.Bf6! μ (-1.35) Depth: 12 00:00:17 34601 kN 1.Bf6 Qb5+ 2.Ke1 Bb4+ 3.Kf2 Bc5+ = (0.00) Depth: 12 00:00:20 34601 kN 1.Bf6 Qb5+ 2.Ke1 Nxf6 3.Nxf6+ Kg7 4.Nh5+ gxh5 5.Qf6+ Kg8 6.Qg5+ Kh8 7.Qf6+ = (0.00) Depth: 15 00:01:01 130544 kN 1.Rxc5! = (0.15) Depth: 15 00:01:12 145875 kN 1.Rxc5 Nxc5 2.Nf6+ Kh8 3.Qh4 Qb5+ 4.Ke3 h5 5.Nxh5 Qd3+ 6.Kf2 Ne4+ 7.fxe4 Qd4+ 8.Kf1 Qd3+ 9.Ke1 Qb1+ 10.Bd1 ± (2.18) Depth: 15 00:01:18 145875 kN Stockfish 14dev 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognises the significance of Rxc5!! in 1 second. Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2: NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 21/25 00:01 5822k 5545k +6,61 Rxc5 Qxc5 Nxc5 Nxc5 Bh6 Nbd7 Bxf8 Rxf8 Qe3 Rc8 f4 Nxe5 Qxe5 Ne6 Bxe6 Rc2+ Kd3 Rxh2 46/86 11:27 5057055k 7355k +7,61 Rxc5 Qxc5 Nxc5 Nxc5 Bf6 Ne6 Qh6 Nd4+ Kf2 Nf5 Qg5 Nd7 h4 Nxf6 Qxf6 Ng7 d7 b5 Bd5 Rab8 b4 Nh5 Bxf7+ Rxf7 d8R+ Rxd8 Qxd8+ Rf8 Qd5+ Kg7 e6 Kf6 Qd7 Ng7 Qd4+ Kxe6 Qxg7 Rf7 Qc3 Ke7 Qc5+ Ke8 Qc8+ Ke7 h5 gxh5 Kg3 h4+ Kh2 h6 Qc5+ Kf6 Qxb5 Kg7 f4 Rxf4 Qe5+ Rf6 b5 h3 Qd4 Kg8 Qxf6 h5 Blacks 22. .. Nxc5 is suboptimal and leads faster mate 77/44 09:18 6987714k 12518k +M22 Nf6+ Kh8 Qh4 Qb5+ Ke3 Qxb3+ axb3 h5 Nxh5 Nd5+ Kd4 Ne6+ Kxd5 Nxg5 Qxg5 gxh5 f4 Rad8 f5 f6 Qxh5+ Kg7 Qg6+ Kh8 e6 b6 e7 Rb8 exf8Q+ Rxf8 Ke6 b5 Ke7 Rb8 Qh5+ Kg7 Qf7+ Kh8 Kxf6 Rf8 Qxf8+ Kh7 Qg7+ == Problem 3 == FEN: r2qk2r/ppp1b1pp/2n1p3/3pP1n1/3P2b1/2PB1NN1/PP4PP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 1 12.Nxg5!! Bxd1 13.Nxe6 Qb8 14.Nxg7+!! Kf8 15.Bh6! Bg4 16.0-0+ Kg8 17.Rf4 ± White wins with a queen sac but black has defensive resources. Stockfish 8 64bit 3CPU running on 2016 hardware recognizes the significance of Nxg5!! in 55 seconds. Stockfish 14 dev (Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2) 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognizes the significance of Nxg5!! in 1 second. NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 21/34 00:01 8291k 4530k +2,78 Nxg5 Bxd1 Nxe6 Qb8 Nxg7+ Kd8 Kxd1 b5 N3f5 Bf8 Rf1 Kc8 Nh5 Kb7 Bxb5 Ne7 g4 a6 Ba4 Nxf5 gxf5 Ka7 Nf4 c5 47/59 37:49 10390430k 4578k +3,16 Nxg5 Bxd1 Nxe6 Qb8 Nxg7+ Kd8 Kxd1 b5 Rf1 Kc8 N3f5 Bf8 Ne6 Kd7 Nf4 Ne7 g4 a5 Ke2 Qb7 h4 Ra6 a3 Kc8 Be3 Kb8 Kf3 Rb6 Bd2 Qc8 Kg3 c5 Be3 c4 Nxe7 Bxe7 Bf5 Qd8 h5 Qg8 Kh3 Bg5 Rf3 Ra6 Raf1 b4 Nxd5 Qxd5 Bxg5 bxc3 bxc3 Rb6 Be3 Rb3 Blacks 14 .. Kf8 is suboptimal and leads loss fast 41/68 06:31 3269727k 8350k +9,28 Bh6 Kg8 Rxd1 Bf8 N3h5 Bxg7 Nxg7 Qf8 Nf5 Ne7 Bxf8 Nxf5 Bxf5 Rxf8 Be6+ Kg7 Rd3 Rf4 Bxd5 c6 Rg3+ Kf8 Rf3 Rxf3 Bxf3 Kg7 Rf1 Re8 Be4 Re6 Ke2 a5 Ke3 Rh6 h3 a4 Kf4 Re6 h4 Re8 Ke3 h6 h5 Rf8 Rxf8 Kxf8 == Problem 4 == FEN: r1b1kb1r/1p1n1ppp/p2ppn2/6BB/2qNP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - 0 1 10.Nxe6!! Qxe6 11.Nd5 Kd8 12.Bg4 Qe5 13.f4 Qxe4 (13...Qxb2 stronger but not sufficient: 14.Bxd7 Bxd7 15.Rb1 Qa3 16.Nxf6 Bb5 17.Qd4 Qc5 18.Rfd1 ±) 14.Bxd7 Bxd7 15.Nxf6 gxf6 16.Bxf6+ Kc7 17.Bxh8 and Black resigned on move 27. Stockfish 14dev 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognises the significance of 10.Nxe6 in 1 second. Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2: NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 22/37 00:01 6955k 5367k +4,00 Nxe6 Qxe6 Nd5 Kd8 Bg4 Qe5 f4 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 Bxd7 Bxd7 Nxf6 Bb5 Rf3 Qxa2 c4 Bxc4 Rf2 Qa5 Nd5+ f6 Nxf6 Kc7 Rc1 b5 Qd5 gxf6 Bxf6 Kb8 Rxc4 Qe1+ Rf1 51/70 47:10 14538911k 5137k +5,76 Nxe6 Qxe6 Nd5 Kd8 Bg4 Qe5 f4 Qxe4 Bxd7 Bxd7 Nxf6 Qf5 Qd4 Kc8 Nd5 Bc6 c4 f6 Nb6+ Kb8 Bh4 Be7 Rae1 Bd8 Nxa8 Kxa8 Bf2 Kb8 Qxd6+ Bc7 Ba7+ Kc8 Qe6+ Qxe6 Rxe6 h5 h4 Rd8 Re7 g6 Be3 Ba5 Kf2 Rd6 Rc1 Bd8 Rg7 Be4 Rg8 Kd7 c5 Rd3 Rc4 Bd5 Rg7+ Ke6 Rd4 Rxd4 Bxd4 Kf5 Rd7 Bc6 Rxd8 Kxf4 Bxf6 == Problem 5 == FEN: r2qrb1k/1p1b2p1/p2ppn1p/8/3NP3/1BN5/PPP3QP/1K3RR1 w - - 0 1 21.e5!! dxe5 22.Ne4! Nh5 23.Qg6!? (stronger is 23.Qg4!! Nf4 24.Nf3 Qc7 25.Nh4 ± ) 23...exd4? (23...Nf4 24.Rxf4! exf4 25.Nf3! Qb6 26.Rg5!! covering b5 and threatening Nf6 or Ne5-f7+) 24.Ng5 1−0 Stockfish 8 64bit 3CPU running on 2016 hardware recognises the significance of 21.e5 in 5 seconds. Stockfish 12 dev (Stockfish_20062212_x64_modern) 64bit 1CPU running on 2016 hardware recognizes the significance of 21.e5 in 11 seconds. 25/42 00:06 7 963k 1309k +6,93 e5 Nh5 Ne4 dxe5 Nf3 Nf4 Qg4 Qc7 Nh4 Bc6 Nf6 g5 Rxf4 exf4 Qh5 Qe7 Ng6+ Kg7 Nxe7 Rxe7 Ng4 37/62 03:12 298 083k 1545k +10,70 e5 Ng4 Qxg4 Qg5 Qh3 Qxe5 Nde2 g5 Rxf8+ Kg7 Rff1 Rf8 Re1 Qf5 Qg3 Rad8 Nd4 Qf4 Nxe6+ Bxe6 Rxe6 Qxg3 == Problem 6 == FEN: rnbqk2r/1p3ppp/p7/1NpPp3/QPP1P1n1/P4N2/4KbPP/R1B2B1R b kq - 0 1 13... axb5!! offers an exchange to keep the white queen out of play. 14.Qxa8 Bd4 15.Nxd4 cxd4 16.Qxb8 0-0! 17.Ke1 Qh4 18.g3 Qf6 19.Bf4 g5? (Ivanchuk found 19...d3! during post-game analysis.) 20.Rc1 exf4 21.Qxf4 Qd4 22.Rd1 bxc4 23.e5 Qc3+ 24.Rd2 Re8 25.Bxd3 cxd3 −+ Tasc R30 finds 19... d3! in 2 1/2 hours. 19... Bf5!! is even stronger than 19... d3. Position is already lost at 19... d3 +8.00 for black, ... Bf5 not much better Stockfish 14dev 64bit 4CPU running on 2020 hardware recognises the significance of axb5!! in 1 second. Stockfish_21092606_x64_avx2: NNUE evaluation using nn-13406b1dcbe0.nnue enabled. 21/28 00:01 9264k 4714k -1,22 axb5 Qxa8 Bd4 Nxd4 cxd4 h3 Nf6 Bg5 0-0 cxb5 h6 Bxf6 Qxf6 Re1 Nd7 Kd1 Qg6 Qa4 Qg3 Qc2 Qxa3 Bd3 Qxb4 Qb1 46/67 1:05:00 18113493k 4644k -2,40 axb5 Qxa8 Bd4 h3 Nf6 Nxd4 exd4 Kf2 Nxe4+ Kg1 Nd7 Bg5 Qxg5 Qxc8+ Ke7 Qc7 Qe5 d6+ Qxd6 Qxd6+ Kxd6 bxc5+ Ndxc5 cxb5 d3 h4 d2 Rh3 Ke5 Be2 f5 Ra2 Rd8 Bd1 Rd4 Re3 f4 Re2 b6 a4 Kd6 Rc2 Kd5 Ra2 h6 Rb2 Nxa4 Bxa4 Rxa4 Rexd2+ Nxd2 Rxd2+ Kc4 Rd7 g6 == Problem 7 == FEN 1r1bk2r/2R2ppp/p3p3/1b2P2q/4QP2/4N3/1B4PP/3R2K1 w k - 0 1 1.Rxd8+!! Rxd8 (1...Kxd8 2.Ra7! Qe2 3.Qd4+ Ke8 4.h3 Qe1+ 5.Kh2 Rd8 6.Qc5 Qh4 7.Ba3 Rd7 8.Ra8+ Rd8 9.g3 1−0)
Discovery system (artificial intelligence)
A discovery system is an artificial intelligence system that attempts to discover new scientific concepts or laws. The aim of discovery systems is to automate scientific data analysis and the scientific discovery process. Ideally, an artificial intelligence system should be able to search systematically through the space of all possible hypotheses and yield the hypothesis - or set of equally likely hypotheses - that best describes the complex patterns in data. During the era known as the second AI summer (approximately 1978–1987), various systems akin to the era's dominant expert systems were developed to tackle the problem of extracting scientific hypotheses from data, with or without interacting with a human scientist. These systems included Autoclass, Automated Mathematician, Eurisko, which aimed at general-purpose hypothesis discovery, and more specific systems such as Dalton, which uncovers molecular properties from data. The dream of building systems that discover scientific hypotheses was pushed to the background with the second AI winter and the subsequent resurgence of subsymbolic methods such as neural networks. Subsymbolic methods emphasize prediction over explanation, and yield models which works well but are difficult or impossible to explain which has earned them the name black box AI. A black-box model cannot be considered a scientific hypothesis, and this development has even led some researchers to suggest that the traditional aim of science - to uncover hypotheses and theories about the structure of reality - is obsolete. Other researchers disagree and argue that subsymbolic methods are useful in many cases, just not for generating scientific theories. == Discovery systems from the 1970s and 1980s == Autoclass was a Bayesian Classification System written in 1986 Automated Mathematician was one of the earliest successful discovery systems. It was written in 1977 and worked by generating a modifying small Lisp programs Eurisko was a Sequel to Automated Mathematician written in 1984 Dalton is a still maintained program capable of calculating various molecular properties initially launched in 1983 and available in open source since 2017 Glauber is a scientific discovery method written in the context of computational philosophy of science launched in 1983 == Modern discovery systems (2009–present) == After a couple of decades with little interest in discovery systems, the interest in using AI to uncover natural laws and scientific explanations was renewed by the work of Michael Schmidt, then a PhD student in Computational Biology at Cornell University. Schmidt and his advisor, Hod Lipson, invented Eureqa, which they described as a symbolic regression approach to "distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data". This work effectively demonstrated that symbolic regression was a promising way forward for AI-driven scientific discovery. Since 2009, symbolic regression has matured further, and today, various commercial and open source systems are actively used in scientific research. Notable examples include Eureqa, now a part of DataRobot AI Cloud Platform, AI Feynman, and QLattice.
World model (artificial intelligence)
A world model in artificial intelligence is a machine learning system that builds an internal representation of an environment. The model predicts how that environment changes over time in response to actions. Researchers design world models to help agents plan, reason, and act without constant real-world trial and error. World models differ from systems that merely classify or generate outputs. They simulate dynamics such as physics, object interactions, and causality. Early ideas date to the 1990s. Modern versions power robots, autonomous driving, and interactive video generation. == History == Jürgen Schmidhuber introduced the term world model in machine learning in 1990. He proposed recurrent neural networks that predict future states from observations and use those predictions to train agents. David Ha and Schmidhuber revived the concept in a 2018 paper. Their agents learned to drive virtual cars and play video games inside self-generated simulations. Yann LeCun advanced the idea in a 2022 position paper titled "A Path Towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence". He argued that intelligence requires predictive models of the world rather than pure pattern matching. LeCun proposed the joint embedding predictive architecture (JEPA) as a practical foundation. LeCun and collaborators developed several JEPA variants. V-JEPA 2 reached state-of-the-art performance on video understanding and physical reasoning at the time. It supports zero-shot robot control in unfamiliar environments. Introduced in March 2026, LeWorldModel trains stably end-to-end from raw pixels and uses two loss terms and avoids hand-crafted heuristics. LeCun founded Advanced Machine Intelligence Labs in 2026 to further develop world models. Google DeepMind introduced Genie in 2024. The model learned interactive environments from unlabeled internet videos. Genie 2 followed in late 2024 and added three-dimensional generation. The Genie series set benchmarks for general-purpose simulation. Genie 3 was introduced in August 2025. It produces photorealistic, real-time interactive worlds from text prompts which are displayed at 24 frames per second and explored in real time with text or image prompts. The model supports persistent three-dimensional worlds and real-time interaction. Waymo adopted Genie 3 in February 2026 and used it to create a specialized world model for autonomous driving simulation, called the Waymo World Model. It produces synchronized camera and lidar outputs and creates edge cases that real robotaxis rarely encounter. The edge cases were reported to be unusual by PCMag. General Intuition announced a $133.7 million seed round. World Labs raised $1 billion. AMI raised $1.03 billion. In April 2026, Alibaba announced Happy Oyster, its world model designed for real-time and “flowy” world model. It includes a directing mode for world building based on text and image prompts and a wandering mode for exploring the resulting world. It can generate 3-minute in-world video clips. Also in April, World Labs, co-founded by Li Fei Fei, unveiled Spark 2.0, an open-source 3D Gaussian splatting rendering engine that targets smartphone-class devices. In June 2026, Nvidia released Cosmos 3, a family of open-weight models. It combines previously independent physical reasoning, world simulation, and action generation. Cosmos 3 integrates can process and generate text, image, video, audio, and action sequences. The model employs a Mixture-of-Transformers" (MoT) approach. An autoregressive (AR) transformer handles reasoning and next-token prediction, while a diffusion transformer (DT) does multimodal generation. Encoders (ViT for vision, VAE for visual/audio, and domain-specific for actions) and generate a shared representation space using 3D multi-dimensional rotary position embedding (mRoPE) for spatial and temporal information. The family includes Cosmos3-Nano (16B parameters) for workstations; Cosmos3-Super (64B parameters) for research. == Architecture == World models process raw sensory data such as video frames or lidar scans. They compress this input into compact latent representations. The system then predicts future representations rather than pixel-by-pixel reconstructions. Many modern world models use joint embedding predictive architecture (JEPA). An encoder turns observations into embeddings. A predictor estimates one or a suite of embeddings from the current one and an action. In some cases a critic chooses one embedding as the best result. A regularizer keeps embeddings well-behaved. The model trains by minimizing prediction error in embedding space. This approach avoids the high cost of generating every detail. Some architectures add explicit components. A fast reactive path handles immediate responses. A slower deliberative path performs longer-horizon planning. Video prediction accuracy or robot success rates are key metrics, but do not always predict real-world performance. Generative world models such as Genie 3 combine these with a simulator. They accept text prompts or layouts and output consistent video, lidar, or three-dimensional scenes. World models often train with self-supervised learning. They use large unlabeled datasets of video or robot interactions. Self-supervised learning can speed learning. Reinforcement learning can fine-tune a model for specific tasks. == Applications == World models support robot learning. Agents train inside simulations and transfer skills to the physical world. This reduces the need for dangerous or expensive real-world trials. Autonomous vehicles use world models to test rare events. Waymo's system simulates tornadoes or unusual pedestrian behavior. Companies train planners without putting vehicles on public roads. Interactive entertainment benefits from world models. Genie 3 lets users generate playable environments from simple descriptions. Game studios prototype levels faster. Scientific simulation gains from these models. Researchers model physical systems or biological processes at scale. Planners in logistics or urban design test strategies inside accurate digital twins. == Comparison with large language models == Both world models and large language models (LLMs) use inferencing on their inputs to make predictions. LLMs operate on textual inputs. They predict the next token in text sequences. They excel at language-oriented tasks such as translation or summarization. However, they lack understanding of physics. World models operate on sensor inputs such as pixels. They predict state changes in that data in latent space. This design supports planning and causal reasoning. LLMs generate fluent text but often fail at consistent physical predictions. Their architecture employs transformers with refinements such as mixture of experts. World models divide an inferencing task into work performed by encoders, predictors, simulators, and other pieces. They typically handle multimodal inputs such as video, lidar, radar, and audio, guided by textual prompting. LLMs power chatbots and code assistants. World models drive embodied agents that act in dynamic environments, such as autonomous driving. The two may be combined in hybrid systems. For example, a LLM handles instructions, while a world model manages low-level control. World model proponents such as LeCun claim that because LLMs are trained only on text, they have no ability to predict anything beyond text, such as real-world events. == Benchmarks == World model benchmarks test physical understanding, long-term consistency, planning, and generalization from sensor data. Meta introduced three benchmarks for V-JEPA 2. IntPhys 2 measures a model's ability to detect physics violations. It presents pairs of videos that diverge when one breaks physical rules. Humans score near 100% accuracy. V-JEPA 2 achieves little better than random chance on many conditions. Minimal Video Pairs (MVPBench) tests physical understanding through multiple-choice questions based on short video clips. It probes object interactions and causality. Something-Something tests action recognition. Epic-Kitchens-100 tests human action anticipation. DeepMind benchmark: Interactive evaluation measures consistency over minutes of interaction, memory of off-screen objects, and response to user actions or text prompts. Waymo benchmark: Output generation quality: Metrics include realism, controllability (via text prompts), and usefulness for training planners in simulated worlds. However, pixel reconstruction error rate with episodic rewards often fails. Other: Epic-Kitchens-100 (often measured with Recall@5) Ego4D 50 Salads, Breakfast, etc. Potential benchmarks: Zero-shot transfer to robots Long-horizon planning Implausible prediction rate
Geofence warrant
A geofence warrant or a reverse location warrant is a search warrant issued by a court to allow law enforcement to search a database to find all active mobile devices within a particular geo-fence area. Courts have granted law enforcement geo-fence warrants to obtain information from databases such as Google's Sensorvault, which collects users' historical geolocation data. Geo-fence warrants are a part of a category of warrants known as reverse search warrants. == History == Geofence warrants were first used in 2016. Google reported that it had received 982 such warrants in 2018, 8,396 in 2019, and 11,554 in 2020. A 2021 transparency report showed that 25% of data requests from law enforcement to Google were geo-fence data requests. Google is the most common recipient of geo-fence warrants and the main provider of such data, although companies including Apple, Snapchat, Lyft, and Uber have also received such warrants. == Legality == === United States === Some lawyers and privacy experts believe reverse search warrants are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires any search warrants be specific to what and to whom they apply. The Fourth Amendment specifies that warrants may only be issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Some lawyers, legal scholars, and privacy experts have likened reverse search warrants to general warrants, which were made illegal by the Fourth Amendment. Groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation have opposed geo-fence warrants in amicus briefs filed in motions to quash such orders to disclose geo-fence data. In 2024, a panel of the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals considered data acquired from Google’s Sensorvault not to be a search, but non-private business records when users opt-in to Google’s location history. However, upon a rehearing en banc, the Court vacated that decision. In April 2025, the full Court affirmed the judgment solely on the 'good faith' exception, leaving the underlying constitutional question of whether geofence warrants constitute a search unsettled in the Circuit. However, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that geofence warrants are "categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment." The split in Circuits prompted the United States Supreme Court to agree to hear Chatrie v. United States in January 2026.
Sparkles emoji
The Sparkles emoji (U+2728 ✨ SPARKLES) is an emoji that has one large star surrounded by smaller stars. Originating from Japan to represent sparkles used in anime and manga, the sparkles are often used as emphasis in text by surrounding words or phrases with it. It is the third most-used emoji in the world on Twitter as of 2021. Since the early 2020s it has been used by major software companies to represent artificial intelligence, marketing the technology as "like magic". == Development == According to Emojipedia, the Sparkles emoji was first used by Japanese mobile operators SoftBank, Docomo and au in the late 1990s. The emoji was added to Unicode 6.0 in 2010 and Emoji 1.0 in 2015. On some platforms the Sparkles emoji has been multicoloured whilst on other platforms it has been one colour. Twitter and Microsoft's Sparkles have changed from being multicoloured to being a single colour. Samsung's version of the emoji previously had a night sky in the background. == Usage == === Interpersonal communication === The Sparkles emoji was originally meant to represent the usage of sparkles in Japanese anime and manga, where the sparkles are used to represent beauty, happiness or awe. The emoji has several meanings and depends upon context. Starting in the late 2010s, the emoji started being used to surround words or phrases to be used as emphasis, an example from the book Because Internet being "I would simply ✨pass away✨". It can also be used as sarcasm, irony or as a way to mock people. Without emoji this could be represented with tildes or asterisks, for example, "~tildes~" or "~asterisk plus tilde~" or "~~true sparkle exuberance~~". The sparkles emoji can be used to represent stars in text, be used to represent cleanliness or can be used to mean "orgasm" whilst sexting. In September 2021 the Sparkles emoji overtook the Pleading Face (🥺) emoji to become the third most-used emoji in the world according to Emojipedia, with approximately 1 per cent of all tweets containing the Sparkles emoji. === Artificial intelligence === In the early 2020s, the Sparkles emoji started being used as an icon to represent artificial intelligence (AI). Companies who use the emoji this way include Google, OpenAI, Samsung, Microsoft, Adobe, Spotify and Zoom. As of August 2024, seven of the top 10 software companies by market capitalisation use the Sparkles emojis with AI. OpenAI has different versions of the Sparkles for different versions of the models that ChatGPT uses. One explanation is that Sparkles is being used by these companies as a way to market AI as "magic". Marketing technology as "magic" has been used before AI, particularly by Apple. Another explanation given by designers and marketers choosing to use Sparkles to signify AI is simply that other platforms are doing it, making it familiar to users. Around 2024, some of these companies started removing two of the smaller stars from the emoji in their AI services and have kept the one large star, an example being Google's Gemini chatbot. In early 2024, the Nielsen Norman Group provided test subjects with the star in isolation and found that people did not associate the symbol with AI, but instead mostly with "optimisation" or "favourite or save an item".