Art Recognition

Art Recognition is a Swiss technology company headquartered in Adliswil, within the Zurich metropolitan area, Switzerland. Art Recognition specializes in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) for art authentication and the detection of art forgeries. == Overview == Art Recognition was established in 2019 by Dr. Carina Popovici and Christiane Hoppe-Oehl. Art Recognition employs a combination of machine learning techniques, computer vision algorithms, and deep neural networks to assess the authenticity of artworks. The company's technology undergoes a process of data collection, dataset preparation, and training. === Academic partnerships and grants === Art Recognition has established a relationship with Innosuisse, a Swiss innovation agency, to expand its research and development initiatives. It has also formed a strategic collaboration with Nils Büttner, an art historian and professor at the State Academy of Fine Arts Stuttgart (ABK Stuttgart). === Notable developments === In May 2024, Art Recognition played a key role in identifying counterfeit artworks, including alleged Monets and Renoirs, being sold on eBay. Germann Auction in November 2024 became the first auction house to successfully conduct a sale of artwork authenticated entirely by artificial intelligence. As of January 2025, Art Recognition has appointed art crime expert and Pulitzer Prize finalist Noah Charney as an advisor. === Recognition and debates === The company was featured on the front page of The Wall Street Journal for its involvement in the authentication case of the Flaget Madonna, believed to have been partly painted by Raphael. A broadcast by the Swiss public television SRF covered how the algorithm can be used to detect art forgeries with high accuracy. The technology developed by Art Recognition has been recognized for its role in providing a technology-based art authentication solution, compared to traditional methods. == Controversial cases == Art Recognition's AI algorithm has been applied to several high-profile and controversial artworks, sparking significant interest and debate in the art world. Samson and Delilah at the National Gallery in London: The National Gallery's "Samson and Delilah", traditionally attributed to the artist Rubens, has also been examined using Art Recognition's AI, which has assessed the painting as non-authentic. De Brecy Tondo Madonna. A research team from Bradford University and the University of Nottingham initially attributed the painting to Raphael, employing an AI face recognition software, while the AI developed at Art Recognition returned a negative result. The Bradford group's AI was trained on 49 images, whereas Art Recognition employed a larger dataset of over 100 images. Lucian Freud Painting Controversy: Featured in The New Yorker, a painting attributed to Lucian Freud became a subject of dispute. Art Recognition's AI analysis played a big role in examining the painting's authenticity. Titian at Kunsthaus Zürich: A painting attributed to Titian, housed at Kunsthaus Zürich, has been a topic of debate among art experts. The application of Art Recognition's technology offered a new perspective. Following this debate, Kunsthaus Zürich has announced plans to initiate a comprehensive project aimed at resolving the authenticity questions surrounding the painting. Art Recognition has contributed to the authentication debate surrounding The Polish Rider, a painting traditionally attributed to Rembrandt but subject to scholarly debate.

Hekaton (database)

Hekaton (also known as SQL Server In-Memory OLTP) is an in-memory database for OLTP workloads built into Microsoft SQL Server. Hekaton was designed in collaboration with Microsoft Research and was released in SQL Server 2014. Traditional RDBMS systems were designed when memory resources were expensive, and were optimized for disk storage. Hekaton is instead optimized for a working set stored entirely in main memory, but is still accessible via T-SQL like normal tables. It is fundamentally different from the "DBCC PINTABLE" feature in earlier SQL Server versions. Hekaton was announced at the Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) conference 2012.

Split Up (expert system)

Split Up is an intelligent decision support system, which makes predictions about the distribution of marital property following divorce in Australia. It is designed to assist judges, registrars of the Family Court of Australia, mediators and lawyers. Split Up operates as a hybrid system, combining rule – based reasoning with neural network theory. Rule based reasoning operates within strict parameters, in the form: IF < condition(s) > then . Neural networks, by contrast, are considered to be better suited to generate decisions in uncertain domains, since they can be taught to weigh the factors considered by judicial decision makers from case data. Yet, they do not provide an explanation for the conclusions they reach. Split_up, with a view to overcome this flaw, uses argument structures proposed by Toulmin as the basis for representations from which explanations can be generated. == Application == In Australian family law, a judge in determining the distribution of property will: identify the assets of the marriage included in the common pool establish what percentage of the common pool each party will receive determine a final property order in line with the decisions made in 1. and 2. Split_Up implements step 1 and 2 : the common pool determination and the prediction of a percentage split. === The common pool determination === Since the determination of marital property is rule based, it is implemented using directed graphs. However, the percentage split between the parties is discretionary in that a judge has a wide discretion to look at each party's contributions to the marriage under section 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975. Broadly, the contributions can be taken as financial or non-financial. The party who can demonstrate a larger contribution to the marital relationship will receive a larger proportion of the assets. The court may further look at each party's financial resources and future needs under section 75(2)of the Family Law Act 1975. These needs can include factors such as the inability to gain employment, the continued care of a child under 18 years of age or medical expenses. This means that different judges may and will reach different conclusions based on the same facts, since each judge assigns different relevant weights to each factor. Split_up determines the percentage split by using a combination of rule- based reasoning and neural networks. === The percentage split determination === In order to determine how judges weigh the different factors, 103 written judgements of commonplace cases were used to establish a database comprising 94 relevant factors for percentage split determination. The factors relevant for a percentage split determination are: Past contributions of a husband relative to those of a wife The husband's future needs relative to those of the wife The wealth of the marriage The factors relevant for a determination of past contributions are The relative direct and indirect contributions of both parties The length of the marriage The relative contributions of both parties to the homemaking role The hierarchy provides a structure that is used to decompose the task of predicting an outcome into 35 subtasks. Outputs of tasks further down the hierarchy are used as inputs into sub-tasks higher up the hierarchy. Each sub-task is treated as a separate and smaller data mining exercise. Twenty one solid arcs represent inferences performed with the use of rule sets. For example, the level of wealth of a marriage is determined by a rule, which uses the common pool value. By contrast, the fourteen dashed arcs establish inferences performed with the use of neural networks. These receive their name from the fact that they resemble a nervous system in the brain. They consist of many self – adjusting processing elements cooperating in a densely interconnected network. Each processing element generates a single output that is transmitted to the other processing element. The output signal of a processing element depends on the input to the processing element, i.e. each input is gated by a weighting factor that determines the amount of influence that the input will have on the output. The strength of the weighting factors is adjusted autonomously by the processing element as the data is processed. In Split_Up, the neural network is a statistical technique for learning the weights of each of the relevant attributes used in a percentage split determination of marital property. Hence the inputs to the neural network are contributions, future needs and wealth, and the output the percentage split predicted. On each arc there is a statistical weight. Using back propagation the neural network learns the necessary pattern to recognize the prediction. It is trained by repeatedly exposing it to examples of the problem and learning the significance (weights) of the input nodes. The neural network used by Split_up is said to generalise well if the output of the network is correct (or nearly correct) for examples not seen during training, which classifies it as an intelligent system. === Toulmin Argument Structure === Since the manner in which these weights are learned is primarily statistical, domain knowledge of legal rules and principles is not modelled directly. However, explanations for a legal conclusion in a domain as discretionary as the determining the distribution of property following divorce, are at least as important as the conclusion reached. Hence the creators of Split_Up used Toulmin Argument structures, to provide independent explanations of the conclusions reached. These operate on the basis that every argument makes an assertion based on some data. The assertion of the argument stands as the claim of the argument. Since knowing the data and the claim, does not necessarily mean that the claim follows from the data, a mechanism is required to justify the claim in the light of the data. The justification is known as the warrant. The backing of an argument supports the validity of the warrant. In the legal domain, this is typically a reference to a statute or a precedent. Here, a neural network (or rules), produce a conclusion from the data of an argument and the data, warrant and backing are reproduced to generate an explanation. It is noteworthy, though, that an argument's warrant is reproduced as an explanation regardless of the claim values used. This lack of claim - sensitivity must be overcome by the different users, i.e., the judge, the representatives for the wife and the representatives for the husband, each of whom is encouraged to use the system to prepare their cases, but not to rely exclusively on its outcome.

Blackboard system

A blackboard system is an artificial intelligence approach based on the blackboard architectural model, where a common knowledge base, the "blackboard", is iteratively updated by a diverse group of specialist knowledge sources, starting with a problem specification and ending with a solution. Each knowledge source updates the blackboard with a partial solution when its internal constraints match the blackboard state. In this way, the specialists work together to solve the problem. The blackboard model was originally designed as a way to handle complex, ill-defined problems, where the solution is the sum of its parts. == Metaphor == The following scenario provides a simple metaphor that gives some insight into how a blackboard functions: A group of specialists are seated in a room with a large blackboard. They work as a team to brainstorm a solution to a problem, using the blackboard as the workplace for cooperatively developing the solution. The session begins when the problem specifications are written onto the blackboard. The specialists all watch the blackboard, looking for an opportunity to apply their expertise to the developing solution. When someone writes something on the blackboard that allows another specialist to apply their expertise, the second specialist records their contribution on the blackboard, hopefully enabling other specialists to then apply their expertise. This process of adding contributions to the blackboard continues until the problem has been solved. == Components == A blackboard-system application consists of three major components The software specialist modules, which are called knowledge sources (KSs). Like the human experts at a blackboard, each knowledge source provides specific expertise needed by the application. The blackboard, a shared repository of problems, partial solutions, suggestions, and contributed information. The blackboard can be thought of as a dynamic "library" of contributions to the current problem that have been recently "published" by other knowledge sources. The control shell, which controls the flow of problem-solving activity in the system. Just as the eager human specialists need a moderator to prevent them from trampling each other in a mad dash to grab the chalk, KSs need a mechanism to organize their use in the most effective and coherent fashion. In a blackboard system, this is provided by the control shell. === Learnable Task Modeling Language === A blackboard system is the central space in a multi-agent system. It's used for describing the world as a communication platform for agents. To realize a blackboard in a computer program, a machine readable notation is needed in which facts can be stored. One attempt in doing so is a SQL database, another option is the Learnable Task Modeling Language (LTML). The syntax of the LTML planning language is similar to PDDL, but adds extra features like control structures and OWL-S models. LTML was developed in 2007 as part of a much larger project called POIROT (Plan Order Induction by Reasoning from One Trial), which is a Learning from demonstrations framework for process mining. In POIROT, Plan traces and hypotheses are stored in the LTML syntax for creating semantic web services. Here is a small example: A human user is executing a workflow in a computer game. The user presses some buttons and interacts with the game engine. While the user interacts with the game, a plan trace is created. That means the user's actions are stored in a logfile. The logfile gets transformed into a machine readable notation which is enriched by semantic attributes. The result is a textfile in the LTML syntax which is put on the blackboard. Agents (software programs in the blackboard system) are able to parse the LTML syntax. == Implementations == We start by discussing two well known early blackboard systems, BB1 and GBB, below and then discuss more recent implementations and applications. The BB1 blackboard architecture was originally inspired by studies of how humans plan to perform multiple tasks in a trip, used task-planning as a simplified example of tactical planning for the Office of Naval Research. Hayes-Roth & Hayes-Roth found that human planning was more closely modeled as an opportunistic process, in contrast to the primarily top-down planners used at the time: While not incompatible with successive-refinement models, our view of planning is somewhat different. We share the assumption that planning processes operate in a two-dimensional planning space defined on time and abstraction dimensions. However, we assume that people's planning activity is largely opportunistic. That is, at each point in the process, the planner's current decisions and observations suggest various opportunities for plan development. The planner's subsequent decisions follow up on selected opportunities. Sometimes, these decision-sequences follow an orderly path and produce a neat top-down expansion as described above. However, some decisions and observations might also suggest less orderly opportunities for plan development. A key innovation of BB1 was that it applied this opportunistic planning model to its own control, using the same blackboard model of incremental, opportunistic, problem-solving that was applied to solve domain problems. Meta-level reasoning with control knowledge sources could then monitor whether planning and problem-solving were proceeding as expected or stalled. If stalled, BB1 could switch from one strategy to another as conditions – such as the goals being considered or the time remaining – changed. BB1 was applied in multiple domains: construction site planning, inferring 3-D protein structures from X-ray crystallography, intelligent tutoring systems, and real-time patient monitoring. BB1 also allowed domain-general language frameworks to be designed for wide classes of problems. For example, the ACCORD language framework defined a particular approach to solving configuration problems. The problem-solving approach was to incrementally assemble a solution by adding objects and constraints, one at a time. Actions in the ACCORD language framework appear as short English-like commands or sentences for specifying preferred actions, events to trigger KSes, preconditions to run a KS action, and obviation conditions to discard a KS action that is no longer relevant. GBB focused on efficiency, in contrast to BB1, which focused more on sophisticated reasoning and opportunistic planning. GBB improves efficiency by allowing blackboards to be multi-dimensional, where dimensions can be either ordered or not, and then by increasing the efficiency of pattern matching. GBB1, one of GBB's control shells implements BB1's style of control while adding efficiency improvements. Other well-known of early academic blackboard systems are the Hearsay II speech recognition system and Douglas Hofstadter's Copycat and Numbo projects. Some more recent examples of deployed real-world applications include: The PLAN component of the Mission Control System for RADARSAT-1, an Earth observation satellite developed by Canada to monitor environmental changes and Earth's natural resources. The GTXImage CAD software by GTX Corporation was developed in the early 1990s using a set of rulebases and neural networks as specialists operating on a blackboard system. Adobe Acrobat Capture (now discontinued), as it used a blackboard system to decompose and recognize image pages to understand the objects, text, and fonts on the page. This function is currently built into the retail version of Adobe Acrobat as "OCR Text Recognition". Details of a similar OCR blackboard for Farsi text are in the public domain. Blackboard systems are used routinely in many military C4ISTAR systems for detecting and tracking objects. Another example of current use is in Game AI, where they are considered a standard AI tool to help with adding AI to video games. == Recent developments == Blackboard-like systems have been constructed within modern Bayesian machine learning settings, using agents to add and remove Bayesian network nodes. In these 'Bayesian Blackboard' systems, the heuristics can acquire more rigorous probabilistic meanings as proposal and acceptances in Metropolis Hastings sampling though the space of possible structures. Conversely, using these mappings, existing Metropolis-Hastings samplers over structural spaces may now thus be viewed as forms of blackboard systems even when not named as such by the authors. Such samplers are commonly found in musical transcription algorithms for example. Blackboard systems have also been used to build large-scale intelligent systems for the annotation of media content, automating parts of traditional social science research. In this domain, the problem of integrating various AI algorithms into a single intelligent system arises spontaneously, with blackboards providing a way for a collection of distributed, modular natural language processing algorithm

International Aerial Robotics Competition

The International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC) is a university-based robotics competition held on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology, currently hosted by RoboNation. Since 1991, collegiate teams with the backing of industry and government have fielded autonomous flying robots in an attempt to perform missions requiring robotic behaviors not previously exhibited by a flying machine. The term “aerial robotics” was coined by competition creator Robert Michelson in 1990 to describe a new class of small highly intelligent flying machines. Successive years of competition saw these aerial robots grow from vehicles that could barely maintain themselves in the air, to automatons which are self-stable, self-navigating, and able to interact with their environment. The goal of the competition has been to provide a reason for the state-of-the-art of aerial robotics to move forward. Challenges have been geared towards producing advances. From 1991 through 2009, six missions were proposed. Each involved fully autonomous robotic behavior undemonstrated at the time. In October 2013 a seventh mission was proposed. It was the first to involve interaction between aerial robots and multiple ground robots. In 2016, the competition and its creator were recognized during the Georgia legislative session in the form of a senate resolution as the longest running aerial robotics competition in the world. == History == === First mission === The initial mission to move a metallic disc from one side of an arena to the other was seen by many as almost impossible. The college teams improved their entries over the next two years when the competition saw its first autonomous takeoff, flight, and landing by a team from the Georgia Institute of Technology. In 1995, a team from Stanford University was able to acquire a single disk and move it from one side of the arena to the other in a fully autonomous flight—half. === Second mission === The competition mission was toughened and made less abstract by requiring teams to search for a toxic waste dump, map the location of partially buried randomly oriented toxic waste drums, identify the contents of each drum from the hazard labels on the outside of each drum, and bring a sample back from one of the drums. In 1996, a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston University, with backing from Draper Labs, created a small fully autonomous flying robot that repeatedly and correctly mapped the location of all five of the toxic waste drums, and correctly identified the contents of two from the air, completing approximately seventy five percent of the mission. The following year, an aerial robot developed by a team from Carnegie Mellon University completed the entire mission. === Third mission === The third mission began in 1998. It was a search and rescue mission requiring fully autonomous robots to take off, fly to a disaster area and search amid fires, broken water mains, clouds of toxic gas, and rubble. The scenario was recreated at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hazardous Material Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training facility. Because of the realism of the scenario, animatrons were used instead of human actors to simulate survivors incapable of extracting themselves from the disaster area. An aerial robot from Germany's Technische Universität Berlin was able to detect and avoid all of the obstacles, identify all the dead on the ground and the survivors (distinguishing between the two based on movement), and relay pictures of the survivors along with their locations back to first responders who would attempt a rescue. This mission was completed in 2000. === Fourth mission === The fourth mission was initiated in 2001. It involved three scenarios requiring the same autonomous behavior: a hostage rescue mission where a submarine 3 kilometers off the coast must send an aerial robot to find a coastal city, identify the embassy where hostages are being held, locate valid openings in the embassy building, enter (or send in a sensor probe/subvehicle) and relay pictures of the hostages 3 km to the submarine prior to mounting an amphibious assault on the embassy to free the hostages; the discovery of an ancient mausoleum where a virus had killed the archaeological team, who had radioed that an important and undocumented tapestry was hanging inside, with 15 minutes to send an autonomous aerial robot to find the mausoleum, enter it (or send in a sensor probe/subvehicle) and relay pictures of the tapestry back prior to the destruction of the mausoleum and its contents; and an explosion at a nuclear reactor facility where scientists must send in an aerial robot to find the operating reactor building, enter the building (or send in a sensor probe/subvehicle) and relay pictures of the control panels to determine if a melt-down is imminent. All three missions involved the same elements of ingress, locating, identification, entry, and relaying pictures within 15 minutes. It was conducted at the U.S. Army's Fort Benning Soldier Battle Lab using the McKenna MOUT (Military Operations on Urban Terrain) site. The fourth mission was completed in 2008 with 27 teams who had demonstrated each of the required aerial robotic behaviors, except being able to demonstrate these behaviors in under 15 minutes—a feat considered by the judges to be inevitable given more time, and therefore no longer a significant challenge. Thus the fourth mission was terminated, $80,000 in awards distributed, and the fifth mission established. === Fifth mission === The fifth mission picked up where the fourth mission left off by demonstrating the fully autonomous aerial robotic behaviors necessary to rapidly negotiate the confined internal spaces of a structure once it has been penetrated by an air vehicle. The nuclear reactor complex explosion scenario of the fourth mission was used as the backdrop for the fifth mission. The fifth mission required a fully autonomous aerial vehicle to penetrate the structure and negotiate the more complex interior space containing hallways, small rooms, obstacles, and dead ends in order to search for a designated target without the aid of global-positioning navigational aids, and relay pictures back to a monitoring station some distance from the structure. The First Symposium on Indoor Flight Issues was held in conjunction with this 2009 IARC event. === Sixth mission === The sixth mission began in 2010 as an extension of the fifth mission theme of autonomous indoor flight behavior, however it demanded more advanced behaviors than were possible by any aerial robot extant in 2010. This espionage mission involved covertly stealing a flash drive from a particular room in a building and depositing an identical drive to avoid detection of the theft. The 2010 Symposium on Indoor Flight Issues was held concurrently at the University of Puerto Rico - Mayagüez during the 20th anniversary competition. === Seventh mission === The seventh mission began in 2014 demanding more advanced behaviors than were possible by any aerial robot extant in 2014. A single autonomous aerial robot had to herd up to 10 autonomous ground robot targets across one designated end of a 20m x 20m (65.62 feet x 65.62 feet) arena in under 10 minutes. The arena had neither walls for SLAM mapping nor GPS availability. Techniques such as optical flow or optical odometry were possible solutions to navigation within the arena. Collisions with obstacle ground robots ended the run with no score. The autonomous aerial robots interacted with the ground robots in the following way: if an aerial robot touched the ground robot on top, the ground robot would turn clockwise 45°. If the aerial robot blocked its forward motion by landing in front of it, the ground robot would reverse direction. Ground robots that feely escaped the arena, counted against the aerial robot's overall score, so the autonomous aerial robots had to decide which ground robots were in imminent danger of crossing any boundary except the designated one, and redirect them toward the designated boundary.Zhejiang University was the overall winner of Mission 7, of 52 teams from 12 nations entered as competitors. === Eighth mission === In 2018, the 8th mission was announced. Mission 8 focused on non-electronic human-machine interaction for the first time, with four aerial robots assisting humans to complete tasks that one person could not independently accomplish. The gist of mission 8 involved a swarm of autonomous aerial robots working with a human to achieve a task in the presence of hostile "Sentry aerial robots" which were trying to impede the human. In 2018, the inaugural year of mission 8, the American Venue was held on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia, and the Asia/Pacific Venue was conducted at Beihang University in Beijing China. The following year, Mission 8 was successfully completed in Kunming China at the Yunnan Innovation

Something Big Is Happening

"Something Big Is Happening" is an essay by Matt Shumer, an AI entrepreneur, about the impact of artificial intelligence, published in February 2026, that has since been reportedly viewed more than 80 million times and widely discussed. Shumer noted that the technology has crossed an important threshold, where AI has become capable of creating self-improving systems. Referring to one the most recent AI models, he wrote: "It was making intelligent decisions. It had something that felt, for the first time, like judgment. Like taste." Speaking to CNBC's Power Lunch, Shumer said that his "core message" is "people in the workforce should start to use and experiment with AI tools so they can understand what’s coming". Even as the essay was widely shared and discussed, the essay also elicited criticism. Paulo Carvao, in an essay published by the Forbes Magazine stated that some of his advice is sound, but added: "It reads at times like a sales pitch. He urges readers to subscribe to the most advanced AI tools. He implies that those with access to premium models will outpace those without. He frames paid AI subscriptions as a form of insurance against obsolescence." Writing in The Guardian, Dan Milmo and Aisha Down mentioned Shumer as having a history of AI hype and stated, "He previously excited the internet by announcing the release of the world's "top open-source model", which it was not". Many workers in the technology sector criticized the article in blog posts shared on Hacker News; Edward Zitron commented that "while coding LLMs can test products, or scan/fix some bugs, this suggests they A) do this autonomously without human input, B) they do this correctly every time (or ever!)." In an article alluding to Shumer's original post, Ari Colaprete wrote "the LLM is fundamentally a writing machine, it does everything via text, and if you make it produce writing that exists purely to serve some sort of mechanical function, and you train it to succeed in that task, then it will tend to do so, even with vast intricacy."

Question (short story)

"Question" is a science fiction short story by American writer Isaac Asimov. The story first appeared in the March 1955 issue of Computers and Automation (thought to be the first computer magazine), and was reprinted in the April 30, 1957, issue of Science World. It is the first of a loosely connected series of stories concerning a fictional supercomputer called Multivac. The story concerns two technicians who are servicing Multivac, and their argument over whether or not the machine is truly intelligent and able to think. Multivac, however, supplies the answer on its own. After the reprint, another author, Robert Sherman Townes, noticed the climax in the last sentence was very similar to one of his own stories, "Problem for Emmy" (Startling Stories, June 1952), and wrote to Asimov about it. After searching in his library, Asimov did find the original story and, although he did not recall having read it, admitted that the endings were pretty similar. He then replied to Townes, apologizing and promising the story would never again be published, and it never was. Asimov mentioned "Question" in an editorial called "Plagiarism" which appeared in the August 1985 issue of Asimov's Science Fiction (although he did not mention Townes' name or the title of either story). "Plagiarism" was reprinted in Asimov's collection Gold (1995).