In pure and applied mathematics, particularly quantum mechanics and computer graphics and their applications, a spherical basis is the basis used to express spherical tensors. The spherical basis closely relates to the description of angular momentum in quantum mechanics and spherical harmonic functions. While spherical polar coordinates are one orthogonal coordinate system for expressing vectors and tensors using polar and azimuthal angles and radial distance, the spherical basis are constructed from the standard basis and use complex numbers. == In three dimensions == A vector A in 3D Euclidean space R3 can be expressed in the familiar Cartesian coordinate system in the standard basis ex, ey, ez, and coordinates Ax, Ay, Az: or any other coordinate system with associated basis set of vectors. From this extend the scalars to allow multiplication by complex numbers, so that we are now working in C 3 {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} ^{3}} rather than R 3 {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{3}} . === Basis definition === In the spherical bases denoted e+, e−, e0, and associated coordinates with respect to this basis, denoted A+, A−, A0, the vector A is: where the spherical basis vectors can be defined in terms of the Cartesian basis using complex-valued coefficients in the xy plane: in which i {\displaystyle i} denotes the imaginary unit, and one normal to the plane in the z direction: e 0 = e z {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} _{0}=\mathbf {e} _{z}} The inverse relations are: === Commutator definition === While giving a basis in a 3-dimensional space is a valid definition for a spherical tensor, it only covers the case for when the rank k {\displaystyle k} is 1. For higher ranks, one may use either the commutator, or rotation definition of a spherical tensor. The commutator definition is given below, any operator T q ( k ) {\displaystyle T_{q}^{(k)}} that satisfies the following relations is a spherical tensor: [ J ± , T q ( k ) ] = ℏ ( k ∓ q ) ( k ± q + 1 ) T q ± 1 ( k ) {\displaystyle [J_{\pm },T_{q}^{(k)}]=\hbar {\sqrt {(k\mp q)(k\pm q+1)}}T_{q\pm 1}^{(k)}} [ J z , T q ( k ) ] = ℏ q T q ( k ) {\displaystyle [J_{z},T_{q}^{(k)}]=\hbar qT_{q}^{(k)}} === Rotation definition === Analogously to how the spherical harmonics transform under a rotation, a general spherical tensor transforms as follows, when the states transform under the unitary Wigner D-matrix D ( R ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}(R)} , where R is a (3×3 rotation) group element in SO(3). That is, these matrices represent the rotation group elements. With the help of its Lie algebra, one can show these two definitions are equivalent. D ( R ) T q ( k ) D † ( R ) = ∑ q ′ = − k k T q ′ ( k ) D q ′ q ( k ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}(R)T_{q}^{(k)}{\mathcal {D}}^{\dagger }(R)=\sum _{q'=-k}^{k}T_{q'}^{(k)}{\mathcal {D}}_{q'q}^{(k)}} === Coordinate vectors === For the spherical basis, the coordinates are complex-valued numbers A+, A0, A−, and can be found by substitution of (3B) into (1), or directly calculated from the inner product ⟨, ⟩ (5): A 0 = ⟨ e 0 , A ⟩ = ⟨ e z , A ⟩ = A z {\displaystyle A_{0}=\left\langle \mathbf {e} _{0},\mathbf {A} \right\rangle =\left\langle \mathbf {e} _{z},\mathbf {A} \right\rangle =A_{z}} with inverse relations: In general, for two vectors with complex coefficients in the same real-valued orthonormal basis ei, with the property ei·ej = δij, the inner product is: where · is the usual dot product and the complex conjugate must be used to keep the magnitude (or "norm") of the vector positive definite. == Properties (three dimensions) == === Orthonormality === The spherical basis is an orthonormal basis, since the inner product ⟨, ⟩ (5) of every pair vanishes meaning the basis vectors are all mutually orthogonal: ⟨ e + , e − ⟩ = ⟨ e − , e 0 ⟩ = ⟨ e 0 , e + ⟩ = 0 {\displaystyle \left\langle \mathbf {e} _{+},\mathbf {e} _{-}\right\rangle =\left\langle \mathbf {e} _{-},\mathbf {e} _{0}\right\rangle =\left\langle \mathbf {e} _{0},\mathbf {e} _{+}\right\rangle =0} and each basis vector is a unit vector: ⟨ e + , e + ⟩ = ⟨ e − , e − ⟩ = ⟨ e 0 , e 0 ⟩ = 1 {\displaystyle \left\langle \mathbf {e} _{+},\mathbf {e} _{+}\right\rangle =\left\langle \mathbf {e} _{-},\mathbf {e} _{-}\right\rangle =\left\langle \mathbf {e} _{0},\mathbf {e} _{0}\right\rangle =1} hence the need for the normalizing factors of 1 / 2 {\displaystyle 1/\!{\sqrt {2}}} . === Change of basis matrix === The defining relations (3A) can be summarized by a transformation matrix U: ( e + e − e 0 ) = U ( e x e y e z ) , U = ( − 1 2 − i 2 0 + 1 2 − i 2 0 0 0 1 ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf {e} _{+}\\\mathbf {e} _{-}\\\mathbf {e} _{0}\end{pmatrix}}=\mathbf {U} {\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf {e} _{x}\\\mathbf {e} _{y}\\\mathbf {e} _{z}\end{pmatrix}}\,,\quad \mathbf {U} ={\begin{pmatrix}-{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}&-{\frac {i}{\sqrt {2}}}&0\\+{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}&-{\frac {i}{\sqrt {2}}}&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix}}\,,} with inverse: ( e x e y e z ) = U − 1 ( e + e − e 0 ) , U − 1 = ( − 1 2 + 1 2 0 + i 2 + i 2 0 0 0 1 ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf {e} _{x}\\\mathbf {e} _{y}\\\mathbf {e} _{z}\end{pmatrix}}=\mathbf {U} ^{-1}{\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf {e} _{+}\\\mathbf {e} _{-}\\\mathbf {e} _{0}\end{pmatrix}}\,,\quad \mathbf {U} ^{-1}={\begin{pmatrix}-{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}&+{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}&0\\+{\frac {i}{\sqrt {2}}}&+{\frac {i}{\sqrt {2}}}&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix}}\,.} It can be seen that U is a unitary matrix, in other words its Hermitian conjugate U† (complex conjugate and matrix transpose) is also the inverse matrix U−1. For the coordinates: ( A + A − A 0 ) = U ∗ ( A x A y A z ) , U ∗ = ( − 1 2 + i 2 0 + 1 2 + i 2 0 0 0 1 ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}A_{+}\\A_{-}\\A_{0}\end{pmatrix}}=\mathbf {U} ^{\mathrm {} }{\begin{pmatrix}A_{x}\\A_{y}\\A_{z}\end{pmatrix}}\,,\quad \mathbf {U} ^{\mathrm {} }={\begin{pmatrix}-{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}&+{\frac {i}{\sqrt {2}}}&0\\+{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}&+{\frac {i}{\sqrt {2}}}&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix}}\,,} and inverse: ( A x A y A z ) = ( U ∗ ) − 1 ( A + A − A 0 ) , ( U ∗ ) − 1 = ( − 1 2 + 1 2 0 − i 2 − i 2 0 0 0 1 ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}A_{x}\\A_{y}\\A_{z}\end{pmatrix}}=(\mathbf {U} ^{\mathrm {} })^{-1}{\begin{pmatrix}A_{+}\\A_{-}\\A_{0}\end{pmatrix}}\,,\quad (\mathbf {U} ^{\mathrm {} })^{-1}={\begin{pmatrix}-{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}&+{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}&0\\-{\frac {i}{\sqrt {2}}}&-{\frac {i}{\sqrt {2}}}&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix}}\,.} === Cross products === Taking cross products of the spherical basis vectors, we find an obvious relation: e q × e q = 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} _{q}\times \mathbf {e} _{q}={\boldsymbol {0}}} where q is a placeholder for +, −, 0, and two less obvious relations: e ± × e ∓ = ± i e 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} _{\pm }\times \mathbf {e} _{\mp }=\pm i\mathbf {e} _{0}} e ± × e 0 = ± i e ± {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} _{\pm }\times \mathbf {e} _{0}=\pm i\mathbf {e} _{\pm }} === Inner product in the spherical basis === The inner product between two vectors A and B in the spherical basis follows from the above definition of the inner product: ⟨ A , B ⟩ = A + B + ⋆ + A − B − ⋆ + A 0 B 0 ⋆ {\displaystyle \left\langle \mathbf {A} ,\mathbf {B} \right\rangle =A_{+}B_{+}^{\star }+A_{-}B_{-}^{\star }+A_{0}B_{0}^{\star }}
Lenna
Lenna (or Lena) is a standard test image used in the field of digital image processing, starting in 1973. It is a picture of the Swedish model Lena Forsén, shot by photographer Dwight Hooker and cropped from the centerfold of the November 1972 issue of Playboy magazine. Lenna has attracted controversy because of its subject matter. Starting in the mid-2010s, many journals have deemed it inappropriate and discouraged its use, while others have banned it from publication outright. Forsén herself has called for it to be retired, saying "It's time I retired from tech." The spelling "Lenna" came from the model's desire to encourage the proper pronunciation of her name. "I didn't want to be called Leena [English: ]," she explained. == History == Before Lenna, the first use of a Playboy magazine image to illustrate image processing algorithms was in 1961. Lawrence G. Roberts used two cropped six-bit grayscale facsimile scanned images from Playboy's July 1960 issue featuring Playmate Teddi Smith, in his master's thesis on image dithering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lenna was originally intended for high resolution color image processing study. Its history was described in the May 2001 newsletter of the IEEE Professional Communication Society, in an article by Jamie Hutchinson: Alexander Sawchuk estimates that it was in June or July of 1973 when he, then an assistant professor of electrical engineering at the University of Southern California Signal and Image Processing Institute (SIPI), along with a graduate student and the SIPI lab manager, was hurriedly searching the lab for a good image to scan for a colleague's conference paper. They got tired of their stock of usual test images, dull stuff dating back to television standards work in the early 1960s. They wanted something glossy to ensure good output dynamic range, and they wanted a human face. Just then, somebody happened to walk in with a recent issue of Playboy. The engineers tore away the top third of the centerfold so they could wrap it around the drum of their Muirhead wirephoto scanner, which they had outfitted with analog-to-digital converters (one each for the red, green, and blue channels) and a Hewlett Packard 2100 minicomputer. The Muirhead had a fixed resolution of 100 lines per inch and the engineers wanted a 512×512 image, so they limited the scan to the top 5.12 inches of the picture, effectively cropping it at the subject's shoulders. The image's reach was limited in the 1970s and 80s, which is reflected in it initially only appearing in .org domains, but in July 1991, the image featured on the cover of Optical Engineering alongside Peppers, another popular test image. This drew the attention of Playboy to the potential copyright infringement. The peak of image hits on the internet was in 1995. The scan became one of the most used images in computer history. The use of the photo in electronic imaging has been described as "clearly one of the most important events in [its] history". The image spread to over 100 different domains, particularly .com and .edu. In a 1999 issue of IEEE Transactions on Image Processing "Lena" was used in three separate articles, and the picture continued to appear in scientific journals throughout the beginning of the 21st century. Lenna is so widely accepted in the image processing community that Forsén was a guest at the 50th annual Conference of the Society for Imaging Science and Technology (IS&T) in 1997. In 2015, Lena Forsén was also guest of honor at the banquet of IEEE ICIP 2015. After delivering a speech, she chaired the best paper award ceremony. To explain why the image became a standard in the field, David C. Munson, editor-in-chief of IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, stated that it was a good test image because of its detail, flat regions, shading, and texture. He also noted that "the Lena image is a picture of an attractive woman. It is not surprising that the (mostly male) image processing research community gravitated toward an image that they found attractive." While Playboy often cracks down on illegal uses of its material and did initially send a notice to the publisher of Optical Engineering about its unauthorized use in that publication, over time it has decided to overlook the wide use of Lena. Eileen Kent, VP of new media at Playboy, said, "We decided we should exploit this, because it is a phenomenon." == Criticism == The use of the image has produced controversy because Playboy is "seen (by some) as being degrading to women". In a 1999 essay on reasons for the male predominance in computer science, applied mathematician Dianne P. O'Leary wrote: Suggestive pictures used in lectures on image processing ... convey the message that the lecturer caters to the males only. For example, it is amazing that the "Lena" pin-up image is still used as an example in courses and published as a test image in journals today. A 2012 paper on compressed sensing used a photo of the model Fabio Lanzoni as a test image to draw attention to this issue. The use of the test image at the magnet school Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax County, Virginia, provoked a guest editorial by a senior in The Washington Post in 2015 about its detrimental impact on aspiring female students in computer science. In 2017, the Journal of Modern Optics published an editorial titled "On alternatives to Lenna" suggesting three images (Pirate, Cameraman, and Peppers) that "are reasonably close to Lenna in feature space". In 2018, the Nature Nanotechnology journal announced that they would no longer consider articles using Lenna. In the same year SPIE, the publishers of Optical Engineering, also announced that they "strongly discourage" the use of Lenna, and would no longer consider new submissions containing the image "without convincing scientific justification for its use". They noted that aside from the copyright and ethical issues, that it was also no longer useful as a standard image: "In today's age of high-resolution digital image technology, it seems difficult to argue that a 512 × 512 image produced with a 1970s-era analog scanner is the best we have to offer as an image quality test standard". Forsén stated in the 2019 documentary film Losing Lena, "I retired from modeling a long time ago. It's time I retired from tech, too... Let's commit to losing me." The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) announced that, starting April 1, 2024, it will no longer allow use of Lenna in its publications.
Dynamic Graphics Project
The Dynamic Graphics Project (commonly referred to as DGP) is an interdisciplinary research laboratory at the University of Toronto devoted to projects involving computer graphics, computer vision, human computer interaction, and visualization. The lab began as the computer graphics research group of Department of Computer Science Professor Leslie Mezei in 1967. Mezei invited Bill Buxton, a pioneer of human–computer interaction (HCI) to join. In 1972, Ronald Baecker, another HCI pioneer joined, establishing DGP as the first Canadian university group focused on computer graphics and human-computer interaction. According to csrankings.org, the DGP is the top research institution in the world for the combined subfields of computer graphics, HCI, and visualization. Since then, DGP has hosted many well known faculty and students in computer graphics, computer vision and HCI (e.g., Alain Fournier, Bill Reeves, Jos Stam, Demetri Terzopoulos, Marilyn Tremaine). DGP also occasionally hosts artists in residence (e.g., Oscar-winner Chris Landreth). Many past and current researchers at Autodesk (and before that Alias Wavefront) graduated after working at DGP. DGP is located in the St. George campus of University of Toronto in the Bahen Centre for Information Technology. DGP researchers regularly publish at ACM SIGGRAPH, ACM SIGCHI and ICCV. DGP hosts the Toronto User Experience (TUX) Speaker Series and the Sanders Series Lectures. == Notable alumni == Bill Buxton (MS 1978) James McCrae (PhD 2013) Dimitris Metaxas (PhD 1992) Bill Reeves (MS 1976, Ph.D. 1980) Jos Stam (MS 1991, Ph.D. 1995)
Ontology learning
Ontology learning (ontology extraction, ontology augmentation generation, ontology generation, or ontology acquisition) is the automatic or semi-automatic creation of ontologies, including extracting the corresponding domain's terms and the relationships between the concepts that these terms represent from a corpus of natural language text, and encoding them with an ontology language for easy retrieval. As building ontologies manually is extremely labor-intensive and time-consuming, there is great motivation to automate the process. Typically, the process starts by extracting terms and concepts or noun phrases from plain text using linguistic processors such as part-of-speech tagging and phrase chunking. Then statistical or symbolic techniques are used to extract relation signatures, often based on pattern-based or definition-based hypernym extraction techniques. == Procedure == Ontology learning (OL) is used to (semi-)automatically extract whole ontologies from natural language text. The process is usually split into the following eight tasks, which are not all necessarily applied in every ontology learning system. === Domain terminology extraction === During the domain terminology extraction step, domain-specific terms are extracted, which are used in the following step (concept discovery) to derive concepts. Relevant terms can be determined, e.g., by calculation of the TF/IDF values or by application of the C-value / NC-value method. The resulting list of terms has to be filtered by a domain expert. In the subsequent step, similarly to coreference resolution in information extraction, the OL system determines synonyms, because they share the same meaning and therefore correspond to the same concept. The most common methods therefore are clustering and the application of statistical similarity measures. === Concept discovery === In the concept discovery step, terms are grouped to meaning bearing units, which correspond to an abstraction of the world and therefore to concepts. The grouped terms are these domain-specific terms and their synonyms, which were identified in the domain terminology extraction step. === Concept hierarchy derivation === In the concept hierarchy derivation step, the OL system tries to arrange the extracted concepts in a taxonomic structure. This is mostly achieved with unsupervised hierarchical clustering methods. Because the result of such methods is often noisy, a supervision step, e.g., user evaluation, is added. A further method for the derivation of a concept hierarchy exists in the usage of several patterns that should indicate a sub- or supersumption relationship. Patterns like “X, that is a Y” or “X is a Y” indicate that X is a subclass of Y. Such pattern can be analyzed efficiently, but they often occur too infrequently to extract enough sub- or supersumption relationships. Instead, bootstrapping methods are developed, which learn these patterns automatically and therefore ensure broader coverage. === Learning of non-taxonomic relations === In the learning of non-taxonomic relations step, relationships are extracted that do not express any sub- or supersumption. Such relationships are, e.g., works-for or located-in. There are two common approaches to solve this subtask. The first is based upon the extraction of anonymous associations, which are named appropriately in a second step. The second approach extracts verbs, which indicate a relationship between entities, represented by the surrounding words. The result of both approaches need to be evaluated by an ontologist to ensure accuracy. === Rule discovery === During rule discovery, axioms (formal description of concepts) are generated for the extracted concepts. This can be achieved, e.g., by analyzing the syntactic structure of a natural language definition and the application of transformation rules on the resulting dependency tree. The result of this process is a list of axioms, which, afterwards, is comprehended to a concept description. This output is then evaluated by an ontologist. === Ontology population === At this step, the ontology is augmented with instances of concepts and properties. For the augmentation with instances of concepts, methods based on the matching of lexico-syntactic patterns are used. Instances of properties are added through the application of bootstrapping methods, which collect relation tuples. === Concept hierarchy extension === In this step, the OL system tries to extend the taxonomic structure of an existing ontology with further concepts. This can be performed in a supervised manner with a trained classifier or in an unsupervised manner via the application of similarity measures. === Frame and Event detection === During frame/event detection, the OL system tries to extract complex relationships from text, e.g., who departed from where to what place and when. Approaches range from applying SVM with kernel methods to semantic role labeling (SRL) to deep semantic parsing techniques. == Tools == Dog4Dag (Dresden Ontology Generator for Directed Acyclic Graphs) is an ontology generation plugin for Protégé 4.1 and OBOEdit 2.1. It allows for term generation, sibling generation, definition generation, and relationship induction. Integrated into Protégé 4.1 and OBO-Edit 2.1, DOG4DAG allows ontology extension for all common ontology formats (e.g., OWL and OBO). Limited largely to EBI and Bio Portal lookup service extensions.
GPT-4o
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.
Automated machine learning
Automated machine learning (AutoML) is the process of automating the tasks of applying machine learning to real-world problems. It is the combination of automation and ML. AutoML potentially includes every stage from beginning with a raw dataset to building a machine learning model ready for deployment. AutoML was proposed as an artificial intelligence-based solution to the growing challenge of applying machine learning. The high degree of automation in AutoML aims to allow non-experts to make use of machine learning models and techniques without requiring them to become experts in machine learning. Automating the process of applying machine learning end-to-end additionally offers the advantages of producing simpler solutions, faster creation of those solutions, and models that often outperform hand-designed models. Common techniques used in AutoML include hyperparameter optimization, meta-learning and neural architecture search. == Comparison to the standard approach == In a typical machine learning application, practitioners have a set of input data points to be used for training. The raw data may not be in a form that all algorithms can be applied to. To make the data amenable for machine learning, an expert may have to apply appropriate data pre-processing, feature engineering, feature extraction, and feature selection methods. After these steps, practitioners must then perform algorithm selection and hyperparameter optimization to maximize the predictive performance of their model. If deep learning is used, the architecture of the neural network must also be chosen manually by the machine learning expert. Each of these steps may be challenging, resulting in significant hurdles to using machine learning. AutoML aims to simplify these steps for non-experts, and to make it easier for them to use machine learning techniques correctly and effectively. AutoML plays an important role within the broader approach of automating data science, which also includes challenging tasks such as data engineering, data exploration and model interpretation and prediction. == Targets of automation == Automated machine learning can target various stages of the machine learning process. Steps to automate are: Data preparation and ingestion (from raw data and miscellaneous formats) Column type detection; e.g., Boolean, discrete numerical, continuous numerical, or text Column intent detection; e.g., target/label, stratification field, numerical feature, categorical text feature, or free text feature Task detection; e.g., binary classification, regression, clustering, or ranking Feature engineering Feature selection Feature extraction Meta-learning and transfer learning Detection and handling of skewed data and/or missing values Model selection - choosing which machine learning algorithm to use, often including multiple competing software implementations Ensembling - a form of consensus where using multiple models often gives better results than any single model Hyperparameter optimization of the learning algorithm and featurization Neural architecture search Pipeline selection under time, memory, and complexity constraints Selection of evaluation metrics and validation procedures Problem checking Leakage detection Misconfiguration detection Analysis of obtained results Creating user interfaces and visualizations == Challenges and Limitations == There are a number of key challenges being tackled around automated machine learning. A big issue surrounding the field is referred to as "development as a cottage industry". This phrase refers to the issue in machine learning where development relies on manual decisions and biases of experts. This is contrasted to the goal of machine learning which is to create systems that can learn and improve from their own usage and analysis of the data. Basically, it's the struggle between how much experts should get involved in the learning of the systems versus how much freedom they should be giving the machines. However, experts and developers must help create and guide these machines to prepare them for their own learning. To create this system, it requires labor intensive work with knowledge of machine learning algorithms and system design. Additionally, other challenges include meta-learning and computational resource allocation.
Legal information retrieval
Legal information retrieval is the science of information retrieval applied to legal text, including legislation, case law, and scholarly works. Accurate legal information retrieval is important to provide access to the law to laymen and legal professionals. Its importance has increased because of the vast and quickly increasing amount of legal documents available through electronic means. Legal information retrieval is a part of the growing field of legal informatics. In a legal setting, it is frequently important to retrieve all information related to a specific query. However, commonly used boolean search methods (exact matches of specified terms) on full text legal documents have been shown to have an average recall rate as low as 20 percent, meaning that only 1 in 5 relevant documents are actually retrieved. In that case, researchers believed that they had retrieved over 75% of relevant documents. This may result in failing to retrieve important or precedential cases. In some jurisdictions this may be especially problematic, as legal professionals are ethically obligated to be reasonably informed as to relevant legal documents. Legal Information Retrieval attempts to increase the effectiveness of legal searches by increasing the number of relevant documents (providing a high recall rate) and reducing the number of irrelevant documents (a high precision rate). This is a difficult task, as the legal field is prone to jargon, polysemes (words that have different meanings when used in a legal context), and constant change. Techniques used to achieve these goals generally fall into three categories: boolean retrieval, manual classification of legal text, and natural language processing of legal text. == Problems == Application of standard information retrieval techniques to legal text can be more difficult than application in other subjects. One key problem is that the law rarely has an inherent taxonomy. Instead, the law is generally filled with open-ended terms, which may change over time. This can be especially true in common law countries, where each decided case can subtly change the meaning of a certain word or phrase. Legal information systems must also be programmed to deal with law-specific words and phrases. Though this is less problematic in the context of words which exist solely in law, legal texts also frequently use polysemes, words may have different meanings when used in a legal or common-speech manner, potentially both within the same document. The legal meanings may be dependent on the area of law in which it is applied. For example, in the context of European Union legislation, the term "worker" has four different meanings: Any worker as defined in Article 3(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC who habitually uses display screen equipment as a significant part of his normal work. Any person employed by an employer, including trainees and apprentices but excluding domestic servants; Any person carrying out an occupation on board a vessel, including trainees and apprentices, but excluding port pilots and shore personnel carrying out work on board a vessel at the quayside; Any person who, in the Member State concerned, is protected as an employee under national employment law and in accordance with national practice; It also has the common meaning: A person who works at a specific occupation. Though the terms may be similar, correct information retrieval must differentiate between the intended use and irrelevant uses in order to return the correct results. Even if a system overcomes the language problems inherent in law, it must still determine the relevancy of each result. In the context of judicial decisions, this requires determining the precedential value of the case. Case decisions from senior or superior courts may be more relevant than those from lower courts, even where the lower court's decision contains more discussion of the relevant facts. The opposite may be true, however, if the senior court has only a minor discussion of the topic (for example, if it is a secondary consideration in the case). An information retrieval system must also be aware of the authority of the jurisdiction. A case from a binding authority is most likely of more value than one from a non-binding authority. Additionally, the intentions of the user may determine which cases they find valuable. For instance, where a legal professional is attempting to argue a specific interpretation of law, he might find a minor court's decision which supports his position more valuable than a senior courts position which does not. He may also value similar positions from different areas of law, different jurisdictions, or dissenting opinions. Overcoming these problems can be made more difficult because of the large number of cases available. The number of legal cases available via electronic means is constantly increasing (in 2003, US appellate courts handed down approximately 500 new cases per day), meaning that an accurate legal information retrieval system must incorporate methods of both sorting past data and managing new data. == Techniques == === Boolean searches === Boolean searches, where a user may specify terms such as use of specific words or judgments by a specific court, are the most common type of search available via legal information retrieval systems. They are widely implemented but overcome few of the problems discussed above. The recall and precision rates of these searches vary depending on the implementation and searches analyzed. One study found a basic boolean search's recall rate to be roughly 20%, and its precision rate to be roughly 79%. Another study implemented a generic search (that is, not designed for legal uses) and found a recall rate of 56% and a precision rate of 72% among legal professionals. Both numbers increased when searches were run by non-legal professionals, to a 68% recall rate and 77% precision rate. This is likely explained because of the use of complex legal terms by the legal professionals. === Manual classification === In order to overcome the limits of basic boolean searches, information systems have attempted to classify case laws and statutes into more computer friendly structures. Usually, this results in the creation of an ontology to classify the texts, based on the way a legal professional might think about them. These attempt to link texts on the basis of their type, their value, and/or their topic areas. Most major legal search providers now implement some sort of classification search, such as Westlaw's “Natural Language” or LexisNexis' Headnote searches. Additionally, both of these services allow browsing of their classifications, via Westlaw's West Key Numbers or Lexis' Headnotes. Though these two search algorithms are proprietary and secret, it is known that they employ manual classification of text (though this may be computer-assisted). These systems can help overcome the majority of problems inherent in legal information retrieval systems, in that manual classification has the greatest chances of identifying landmark cases and understanding the issues that arise in the text. In one study, ontological searching resulted in a precision rate of 82% and a recall rate of 97% among legal professionals. The legal texts included, however, were carefully controlled to just a few areas of law in a specific jurisdiction. The major drawback to this approach is the requirement of using highly skilled legal professionals and large amounts of time to classify texts. As the amount of text available continues to increase, some have stated their belief that manual classification is unsustainable. === Natural language processing === In order to reduce the reliance on legal professionals and the amount of time needed, efforts have been made to create a system to automatically classify legal text and queries. Adequate translation of both would allow accurate information retrieval without the high cost of human classification. These automatic systems generally employ Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques that are adapted to the legal domain, and also require the creation of a legal ontology. Though multiple systems have been postulated, few have reported results. One system, “SMILE,” which attempted to automatically extract classifications from case texts, resulted in an f-measure (which is a calculation of both recall rate and precision) of under 0.3 (compared to perfect f-measure of 1.0). This is probably much lower than an acceptable rate for general usage. Despite the limited results, many theorists predict that the evolution of such systems will eventually replace manual classification systems. === Citation-Based ranking === In the mid-90s the Room 5 case law retrieval project used citation mining for summaries and ranked its search results based on citation type and count. This slightly pre-dated the PageRank algorithm at Stanford which was also a citation-based ranking. Ranking of results was based