In search of the best AI analytics tool? An AI analytics tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI analytics tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.
Information schema
In relational databases, the information schema (information_schema) is an ANSI-standard set of read-only views that provide information about all of the tables, views, columns, and procedures in a database. It can be used as a source of the information that some databases make available through non-standard commands, such as: the SHOW command of MySQL the DESCRIBE command of Oracle's SQLPlus the \d command in psql (PostgreSQL's default command-line program). => SELECT count(table_name) FROM information_schema.tables; count ------- 99 (1 row) => SELECT column_name, data_type, column_default, is_nullable FROM information_schema.columns WHERE table_name='alpha'; column_name | data_type | column_default | is_nullable -------------+-----------+----------------+------------- foo | integer | | YES bar | character | | YES (2 rows) => SELECT FROM information_schema.information_schema_catalog_name; catalog_name -------------- johnd (1 row) == Implementation == As a notable exception among major database systems, Oracle does not as of 2015 implement the information schema. An open-source project exists to address this. RDBMSs that support information_schema include: Amazon Redshift Apache Hive Microsoft SQL Server MonetDB Snowflake MySQL PostgreSQL H2 Database HSQLDB InterSystems Caché MariaDB SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) Mimer SQL Snowflake Trino Presto CrateDB ClickHouse CockroachDB Kinetica DB TiDB RDBMSs that do not support information_schema include: Apache Derby Apache Ignite Firebird Microsoft Access IBM Informix Ingres IBM Db2 Oracle Database SAP HANA SQLite Sybase ASE Sybase SQL Anywhere Teradata Vertica
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
Argumentation framework
In artificial intelligence and related fields, an argumentation framework is a way to deal with contentious information and draw conclusions from it using formalized arguments. In an abstract argumentation framework, entry-level information is a set of abstract arguments that, for instance, represent data or a proposition. Conflicts between arguments are represented by a binary relation on the set of arguments. In concrete terms, an argumentation framework is represented with a directed graph such that the nodes are the arguments, and the arrows represent the attack relation. There exist some extensions of the Dung's framework, like the logic-based argumentation frameworks or the value-based argumentation frameworks. == Abstract argumentation frameworks == === Formal framework === Abstract argumentation frameworks, also called argumentation frameworks à la Dung, are defined formally as a pair: A set of abstract elements called arguments, denoted A {\displaystyle A} A binary relation on A {\displaystyle A} , called attack relation, denoted R {\displaystyle R} For instance, the argumentation system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } with A = { a , b , c , d } {\displaystyle A=\{a,b,c,d\}} and R = { ( a , b ) , ( b , c ) , ( d , c ) } {\displaystyle R=\{(a,b),(b,c),(d,c)\}} contains four arguments ( a , b , c {\displaystyle a,b,c} and d {\displaystyle d} ) and three attacks ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , b {\displaystyle b} attacks c {\displaystyle c} and d {\displaystyle d} attacks c {\displaystyle c} ). Dung defines some notions : an argument a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in A} is acceptable with respect to E ⊆ A {\displaystyle E\subseteq A} if and only if E {\displaystyle E} defends a {\displaystyle a} , that is ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , ∃ c ∈ E {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,\exists c\in E} such that ( c , b ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (c,b)\in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is conflict-free if there is no attack between its arguments, formally : ∀ a , b ∈ E , ( a , b ) ∉ R {\displaystyle \forall a,b\in E,(a,b)\not \in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is admissible if and only if it is conflict-free and all its arguments are acceptable with respect to E {\displaystyle E} . === Different semantics of acceptance === ==== Extensions ==== To decide if an argument can be accepted or not, or if several arguments can be accepted together, Dung defines several semantics of acceptance that allows, given an argumentation system, sets of arguments (called extensions) to be computed. For instance, given S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } , E {\displaystyle E} is a complete extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is an admissible set and every acceptable argument with respect to E {\displaystyle E} belongs to E {\displaystyle E} , E {\displaystyle E} is a preferred extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a maximal element (with respect to the set-theoretical inclusion) among the admissible sets with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , E {\displaystyle E} is a stable extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a conflict-free set that attacks every argument that does not belong in E {\displaystyle E} (formally, ∀ a ∈ A ∖ E , ∃ b ∈ E {\displaystyle \forall a\in A\backslash E,\exists b\in E} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} , E {\displaystyle E} is the (unique) grounded extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is the smallest element (with respect to set inclusion) among the complete extensions of S {\displaystyle S} . There exists some inclusions between the sets of extensions built with these semantics : Every stable extension is preferred, Every preferred extension is complete, The grounded extension is complete, If the system is well-founded (there exists no infinite sequence a 0 , a 1 , … , a n , … {\displaystyle a_{0},a_{1},\dots ,a_{n},\dots } such that ∀ i > 0 , ( a i + 1 , a i ) ∈ R {\displaystyle \forall i>0,(a_{i+1},a_{i})\in R} ), all these semantics coincide—only one extension is grounded, stable, preferred, and complete. Some other semantics have been defined. One introduce the notation E x t σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)} to note the set of σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions of the system S {\displaystyle S} . In the case of the system S {\displaystyle S} in the figure above, E x t σ ( S ) = { { a , d } } {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)=\{\{a,d\}\}} for every Dung's semantic—the system is well-founded. That explains why the semantics coincide, and the accepted arguments are: a {\displaystyle a} and d {\displaystyle d} . ==== Labellings ==== Labellings are a more expressive way than extensions to express the acceptance of the arguments. Concretely, a labelling is a mapping that associates every argument with a label in (the argument is accepted), out (the argument is rejected), or undec (the argument is undefined—not accepted or refused). One can also note a labelling as a set of pairs ( a r g u m e n t , l a b e l ) {\displaystyle ({\mathit {argument}},{\mathit {label}})} . Such a mapping does not make sense without additional constraint. The notion of reinstatement labelling guarantees the sense of the mapping. L {\displaystyle L} is a reinstatement labelling on the system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } if and only if : ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = i n {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {in}}} if and only if ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , L ( b ) = o u t {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,L(b)={\mathit {out}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = o u t {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {out}}} if and only if ∃ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \exists b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} and L ( b ) = i n {\displaystyle L(b)={\mathit {in}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = u n d e c {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {undec}}} if and only if L ( a ) ≠ i n {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {in}}} and L ( a ) ≠ o u t {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {out}}} One can convert every extension into a reinstatement labelling: the arguments of the extension are in, those attacked by an argument of the extension are out, and the others are undec. Conversely, one can build an extension from a reinstatement labelling just by keeping the arguments in. Indeed, Caminada proved that the reinstatement labellings and the complete extensions can be mapped in a bijective way. Moreover, the other Datung's semantics can be associated to some particular sets of reinstatement labellings. Reinstatement labellings distinguish arguments not accepted because they are attacked by accepted arguments from undefined arguments—that is, those that are not defended cannot defend themselves. An argument is undec if it is attacked by at least another undec. If it is attacked only by arguments out, it must be in, and if it is attacked some argument in, then it is out. The unique reinstatement labelling that corresponds to the system S {\displaystyle S} above is L = { ( a , i n ) , ( b , o u t ) , ( c , o u t ) , ( d , i n ) } {\displaystyle L=\{(a,{\mathit {in}}),(b,{\mathit {out}}),(c,{\mathit {out}}),(d,{\mathit {in}})\}} . === Inference from an argumentation system === In the general case when several extensions are computed for a given semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , the agent that reasons from the system can use several mechanisms to infer information: Credulous inference: the agent accepts an argument if it belongs to at least one of the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions—in which case, the agent risks accepting some arguments that are not acceptable together ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , and a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} each belongs to an extension) Skeptical inference: the agent accepts an argument only if it belongs to every σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extension. In this case, the agent risks deducing too little information (if the intersection of the extensions is empty or has a very small cardinal). For these two methods to infer information, one can identify the set of accepted arguments, respectively C r σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Cr_{\sigma }(S)} the set of the arguments credulously accepted under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , and S c σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Sc_{\sigma }(S)} the set of arguments accepted skeptically under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } (the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } can be missed if there is no possible ambiguity about the semantic). Of course, when there is only one extension (for instance, when the system is well-founded), this problem is very simple: the agent accepts arguments of the unique extension and rejects others. The same reasoning can be done with labellings that correspond to the chosen semantic : an argument can be accepted if it is in for each labelling and refused if it is out for each labelling, the others being in an undecided state (the status of the arguments can remind the
Toy problem
In scientific disciplines, a toy problem or a puzzlelike problem is a problem that is not of immediate scientific interest, yet is used as an expository device to illustrate a trait that may be shared by other, more complicated, instances of the problem, or as a way to explain a particular, more general, problem solving technique. A toy problem is useful to test and demonstrate methodologies. Researchers can use toy problems to compare the performance of different algorithms. They are also good for game designing. For instance, while engineering a large system, the large problem is often broken down into many smaller toy problems which have been well understood in detail. Often these problems distill a few important aspects of complicated problems so that they can be studied in isolation. Toy problems are thus often very useful in providing intuition about specific phenomena in more complicated problems. As an example, in the field of artificial intelligence, classical puzzles, games and problems are often used as toy problems. These include sliding-block puzzles, N-Queens problem, missionaries and cannibals problem, tic-tac-toe, chess, Tower of Hanoi and others.
Groover
Groover is an online platform, record label and distributor, connecting artists and musicians with music professionals and media outlets. The service was founded in 2018 in France and operates from offices in Paris and New York. The platform has over 3,000 active contacts, including SPIN Magazine and Sofar Sounds. Groover uses a micro-payment model. Among the platform's over 500,000 regular users are record labels such as Ninja Tune, Ba Da Bing Records, Dance To The Radio, Roche Musique, Wagram Music, Secret City Records, and artists including Bonobo, Michael Bolton, Aloe Blacc, Haddaway, Passenger, La Femme and Chinese Man. == History == Groover was launched at the MaMA Music Convention in October 2018. It was co-founded by Dorian Perron, Romain Palmieri, and Rafaël Cohen while they were students at UC Berkeley. Initially growing in France, the company has expanded to the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe. In March 2019, Groover was part of the Business France delegation at the South by Southwest (SXSW) festival. In June 2019, Groover raised €1.3 million from various angel investors. In April 2021, Groover acquired the platform Soonvibes, which had 70,000 users at the time, in order to strengthen its community in the electronic music space. In November 2021, Groover announced a €6 million funding round from Bpifrance Creative Industries and Partech. Between 2023 and 2025, Groover entered strategic partnerships with major artist service providers, including CD Baby, TuneCore, SoundCloud, UnitedMasters, Symphonic Distribution, Audiomack and SACEM. In February 2024, Groover announced a Series A funding round of $8 million from OneRagTime, Trind, Techmind, and Mozza Angels. == Function == Using a micro-payment system, professionals listen to tracks and provide written feedback. These professionals retain full editorial independence and are under no obligation to share the track or contact the artist. == Awards == 2nd Prize for Music Innovation 2023 from the Centre national de la musique (France) "Future Creator" Award at the Petit Poucet Competition 2019 Jury's Special Mention at the MaMA Invent 2019 competition 1st Prize for Digital Initiative in Culture, Communication & Media 2019 awarded by Audiens "Start-up of the Year" at the Social Music Awards 2020 French American Entrepreneurship Award 2022 at the French Consulate in New York
Compute (machine learning)
In machine learning and deep learning, compute is the amount of computing power or computational resources required to train machine learning models and large language models. More broadly, compute is the computational power or resources necessary for a computer or computer program to function. == Definition == Compute is commonly defined as the amount of computing power or computational resources required to train machine learning and large language models. The term "compute" has also been more broadly applied to cloud computing, referencing processing power, memory, networking, storage, and other resources required for the computation of any program. Compute is measured in petaflop/s-days and is used to document AI training. A petaflop/s-day (pfs-day) consists of performing 1015 neural net operations per second for one day, or a total of about 1020 operations. The compute-time product serves as a mental convenience, similar to kilowatt-hour for energy. An amount of compute is meant to give an idea of the number of actual operations performed. == History == In a 2018 analysis titled "AI and compute", artificial intelligence company OpenAI introduced the concept of compute. OpenAI identified two eras of training AI systems in terms of compute-usage. From 1959 to 2012, compute roughly followed Moore’s law. Between 2012 and 2018, the amount of compute used in the largest AI training runs increased exponentially, growing by more than 300,000 times — roughly doubling every 3.4 months. By comparison, Moore’s Law doubled every two years over the same period. One of the largest models, released in 2020, used 600,000 times more computing power than the 2012 model. After 2020, compute growth began to slow down, with the compute needed for the largest AI models continuing to slow down in 2023. The notion of compute has become increasingly used from the mid-2020s onwards. == Compute growth and AI progress == Larger AI models trained on more data and using more computational resources, tend to perform better. This happens even if the algorithms themselves remain unchanged. As early as 2018, OpenAI noted the exponential increase in compute to be have a key role in AI progress. OpenAI considers three factors drive the advance of AI: algorithmic innovation, data, and the amount of compute available for training. AI models with more compute not only improve in the tasks they were trained on but can develop emergent abilities. Incremental improvements can lead to more abrupt leaps in capabilities. AI provider SpaceXAI said in 2026 that their AI progress is driven by compute and used it a key metric in the AI training of its supercomputer Colossus, the which contains 1 million GPUs. Anthropic has a contract of $1.25 billion per month with SpaceXAI to buy all the compute capacity at Colossus 1 data center. === Criticism and policy === Increasing, promoting or constraining progress in artificial intelligence has often be done via controlling the amount of compute. Policymarkers have enacted policies and provided support to make compute resources more accessible to domestic AI researchers. In a January 2022 report, the Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) suggested to institutions that increasingly powerful and generalizable AI (AGI) will likely require other strategies than maximizing compute. Some AI researchers are also concerned that government might exclusively focus on scaling compute instead of other strategies. The CSET has reported on the various bottlenecks which could explain why deep learning needs for compute have slow down: training is expensive and training extremely large models generates traffic jams across many processors that are difficult to manage. there is a limited supply of AI chips (see AI chip memory shortage). CSET advances that the main resource is human capital, specifically talented researchers — according to a 2023 published survey of more than 400 AI researchers, academic and private sector workers. The survey found that AI researchers are not primarily or exclusively constrained by compute access. However, both academic and industry AI researchers equally report concerns that insufficient compute could prevent them from contributing meaningfully to AI research in the future. High compute users are more concerned about compute access. When asked about which resource provided by the government would be the most useful to them, some AI researchers select compute, other prefer grant funding. For this goal, CSET advised policymakers to ensure that even researchers with smaller budgets could effectively contribute to AI research. Other proposed strategies include using contemporary AI algorithms, managing modern AI infrastructure or focusing on interdisciplinary work between the AI field and other fields of computer science. A 2024 study on compute access found that academic-only AI research teams often have less compute intensive research topics, especially foundation models, compared to industry AI labs. As a consequence, academia is likely to play a smaller role in advancing such techniques. The researchers suggest nationally-sponsored computing infrastructure as well as open science initiatives to boost academic compute access. === Data === A 2022 study found that current large language models are significantly under-trained, a consequence of focusing on scaling language models whilst keeping the amount of training data constant. By training over 400 language models of various parameter and token size, they found that "for compute-optimal training", the model size and the number of training tokens should ideally be scaled equally: for every doubling of model size the number of training tokens should also be doubled.