Loebner Prize

The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

Verbot

The Verbot (short for Verbal-Robot) was a chatbot program and artificial intelligence software development kit (SDK) designed for Windows and web platforms. == Early beginning == The origin of verbot traces back to Michael Mauldin's research during his time as a graduate student and post-doctoral fellow at Carnegie Mellon University. The creative foundation also stems from Peter Plantec's work in personality psychology and art direction. === Historic outline === In 1994, Michael Loren Mauldin, founder of Lycos, Inc., developed a prototype chatbot, Julia, which competed in the internationally known Turing test, for the coveted Loebner Prize. The Turing test matches computer scientist judges against machines to see if they can distinguish a computer from a real human. Julia was refined and developed, and in 1997, Dr. Mauldin and Peter Plantec, a clinical psychologist and animator, formed Virtual Personalities, Inc. (now Conversive, Inc.) in order to create a virtual human interface that would incorporate real-time animation as well as speech and natural language processing. The initial release, a stand-alone virtual person called Sylvie, was beta-tested to the public. This release was well received, and finally, after several versions, the production release (deemed version 3) of the Verbally Enhanced Software Robot, or Verbot, was deployed in fall 2000. The grandfather of all Verbots is Rog-O-Matic, which, although it could not talk, could and did explore a virtual world. Julia has been active on the internet in one form or another since 1989. A close cousin of Julia is Lycos, a robot that explores the World Wide Web and answers questions about it. Sylvie was the first Verbot with a face and a voice. Sylvie was the first Virtual Human with advanced, flexible interfacing capability. === Beginnings === The Virtual Personalities story goes back to 1978, where Mauldin was attending Rice University. Fascinated by the idea of ELIZA, he proceeded to write a program called "PET" for his 8 kilobyte Commodore PET Computer. PET included simple induction as a way to post new information, for example: Subject: I like my friend (later) Subject: I like food. PET: I have heard that food is your friend. Meanwhile, Plantec was separately designing a personality for "Entity", a theoretical virtual human that would interact comfortably with humans without pretending to be one. At that time the technology was not advanced enough to realize Entity. Mauldin got so involved with this that he majored in Computer Science and minored in Linguistics. === Rogue === In the late seventies and early eighties, a popular computer game at universities was Rogue, an implementation of Dungeons and Dragons where the player would descend 26 levels in a randomly created dungeon, fighting monsters, gathering treasure, and searching for the elusive "Amulet of Yendor". Mauldin was one of four grad students who devoted a large amount of time to building a program called "Rog-O-Matic" capable of retrieving the amulet and emerging victorious from the dungeon. === TinyMUD === In 1989, when James Aspnes at Carnegie Mellon created the first TinyMUD (a descendant of MUD and AberMUD), Mauldin was one of the first to create a computer player that would explore the text-based world of TinyMUD. But his first robot, Gloria, gradually accreted more and more linguistic ability, to the point that it could pass the "unsuspecting" Turing test. In this version of the test, the human has no reason to suspect that one of the other occupants of the room is controlled by a computer, and so is more polite and asks fewer probing questions. The second generation of Mauldin's TinyMUD robots was Julia, created on Jan. 8, 1990. Julia slowly developed into a more and more capable conversational agent, and assumed useful duties in the TinyMUD world, including tour guide, information assistant, note-taker, and message-relayer. She could even play the card game hearts along with the other human players. In 1991, Julia attended the first Loebner Prize contest in Boston, Massachusetts. Although she only finished third, she was ranked by one judge as more human than one of the human confederates, winning a coveted certificate of humanness in the world's first restricted Turing test. Julia continued to log in to various TinyMUD's and TinyMucks for the next seven years, and chatted with hundreds of people a month over the internet. === Lycos === Julia's job was to explore a virtual world consisting of pages of textual descriptions, with links between them, and to construct an internal map of that world and answer questions about it (including path information such as the shortest route from one room to another, and matching information, such as which rooms contained a certain kind of object or textual description). It was therefore only a very short cognitive leap from Julia to Lycos, another robotic agent that explores a virtual world made of hyperlinked pages of text, and which answers questions about those pages. Sylvie was born and her abilities were expanded greatly to include interfacing with computers and control systems via her serial ports. === Sylvie === Sylvie was the first intelligent animated virtual human. She was designed both as a conversation agent and as a virtual human interface that would form a bridge between the two. She became more popular as a conversation agent, but her designers believe she serves as a prototype for future virtual human interface design that will help us all cope with the increasing complexity of technology. As an aside, Plantec noticed that a large number of Sylvies have been sold in Southeast Asia. Upon investigation, he found out that students had discovered a "test" mode that would allow them to type in English sentences that Sylvie would pronounce in her somewhat stylized English. == Ownership == In 1997, Dr. Mauldin and Peter Plantec formed Virtual Personalities, Inc. to create Natural Language Processing solutions for companies. In 2001 Virtual Personalities, Inc. became Conversive, Inc. to reflect the focus on providing Customer Service and Marketing to the Enterprise Market. In late 2012 Avaya, Inc. acquired Conversive's assets including Verbots. == Verbot versions == The Verbot 4 version was created and released in 2004. In 2005 Version 4.1 of the Verbot Software was released with many feature enhancements and bug fixes, including built-in support for embedding C# code in outputs and conditionals. In early 2006 Conversive launched Verbots Online allowing Verbot 4 users to upload their knowledge and show off their bots to the world. In 2009 Version 5 was released, completely free and fully featured. In early 2012 the last version of Verbot, 5.0.1.2, was released to the general public with support for Windows 7. Later in 2012 Verbots Online completely shut down. == Verbots today == Verbots.com, its community of users, and its forums no longer exist, but the software and users can still be found. There has been no active development since the early 2012 release of Verbot 5.0.1.2.

Necrobotics

Necrobotics is the practice of using biotic materials (or dead organisms) as robotic components. Necrobotics can serve as an alternative to mechanical components that are difficult to manufacture by using biological components designed by natural selection in order to exploit the highly developed selective design implemented in biological lifeforms via the process of evolution. In July 2022, researchers in the Preston Innovation Lab at Rice University in Houston, Texas published a paper in Advanced Science introducing the concept and demonstrating its capability by repurposing dead spiders as robotic grippers and applying pressurized air to activate their gripping arms. In April 2025 researchers at Shinshu University created a “bio-hybrid drone” using silk-worm moth antennae to detect the source of a smell. In November 2025 researchers at McGill University demonstrated the use of a mosquito proboscis as a fine nozzle in experimental 3D printing. Necrobotics utilizes the spider's organic hydraulic system and their compact legs to create an efficient and simple gripper system. The necrobotic spider gripper is capable of lifting small and light objects, thereby serving as an alternative to complex and costly small mechanical grippers. == Background == The main appeal of the spider's body in necrobotics is its compact leg mechanism and use of hydraulic pressure. The spider's anatomy utilizes a simple hydraulic (fluid) pressure system. Spider legs have flexor muscles that naturally constrict their legs when relaxed. A force is required to straighten and extend their legs, which spiders accomplish by pumping hemolymph fluid (blood) through their joints as a means of hydraulic pressure. It takes no external power to curl their legs due to their flexor muscles' natural curled state. In July 2022, researchers in the Preston Innovation Lab at Rice University published a paper detailing their experiments with the gripper. Although dead spiders no longer produce hemolymph, Te Faye Yap (lead author and mechanical engineering graduate) found that pumping air through a needle into the spider's cephalothorax (main body) accomplishes the same results as hemolymph. The original hydraulic (fluid) system is essentially converted into a pneumatic (air) system. == Fabrication == Obtain a spider Euthanize the spider using a cold temperature of around -4°C for 5-7 days Insert a 25 gauge hypodermic needle into the spider's cephalothorax (main body) Apply glue around the needle to form a seal and allow it to dry Connect a syringe or pump to the needle Extend the spider's legs by pumping air in == Testing and Data == === Internal Force Versus Gripping Force === The typical pressure in a resting spider's legs ranges from 4 kPa to 6.1 kPa. Researchers extended the legs by increasing the spider's internal pressure to 5.5 kPa. Pumping air into the body increases the internal pressure, causing the legs to expand. Pumping air out of the body decreases internal pressure, causing the legs to contract due to their flexor leg muscles. When the internal pressure decreases to 0 kPa, the gripper would be fully closed, allowing for the gripper to grasp objects. This action demonstrates that as internal pressure decreases, the gripping force increases. Inversely, when internal pressure increases, the gripping force decreases. By gripping individual weighted acetate beads, it is found that the necrobotic gripper achieves a maximum gripping force of 0.35 milinewtons. === Spider Weight Versus Gripping Force === To estimate the gripping forces of smaller and larger spiders, researchers created a plot to predict the gripping force relative to the size of the spider. The wolf spider's body weight is relatively equal to the gripping force of its legs. The mass of the gripper is 33.5 mg and can lift 1.3 times its body weight (43.6 mg or 0.35 mN). However, with larger spiders, the gripping force relative to body weight decreases. For example, a 200-gram goliath birdeater is predicted to lift 10% of its weight (20 grams or 196 mN). Though there is an inverse relationship between spider mass and gripping force, larger spiders exert greater gripping forces than smaller spiders. === Gripper Lifespan === The necrobotic gripper's functionality is entirely reliant on the structural integrity of the spider. If the spider were to break down easily and frequently, the gripper would not be practical. Using cyclic testing, a series of repeated actions, it is found that the necrobotic gripper can actuate 700 to 1000 times. After 1000 cycles, cracks begin forming on the membrane of the leg joints due to dehydration. Weakened and decomposing joints lead to frequent breakage and replacement, thereby serving as an obstacle in applying necrobotics to real-world scenarios. One theorized fix to this issue is applying beeswax or a lubricant to the joints. Researchers found that over 10 days, the mass of an uncoated spider decreased 17 times more than the mass of a spider coated with beeswax. Lubricating joints combats dehydration and slows the loss of organic material. == Constraints == With the usage of organic material, there is a higher chance of the component decomposing and breaking down as opposed to traditional mechanical systems. There may be additional work and management required to replace these grippers if they fail. Additionally, organic inconsistencies with the spiders will yield inaccurate results. Not all wolf spiders develop the same, so gripping force and leg contraction can vary between grippers. There are moral implications behind euthanizing spiders for robotics. The ethical boundaries that necrobotics push in the pursuit of biohybrid systems raise concerns, as opponents say it may lead to the hybridization of mammals and is intrusive to nature. Proponents respond that repurposing dead animals has been human practice for millennia and that necrobotics should be pursued to advance science.

Teleradiology

Teleradiology is the transmission of radiological patient images from procedures such as x-rays, Computed tomography (CT), and MRI imaging, from one location to another for the purposes of sharing studies with other radiologists and physicians. Teleradiology allows radiologists to provide services without actually having to be at the location of the patient. This is particularly important when a sub-specialist such as an MRI radiologist, neuroradiologist, pediatric radiologist, or musculoskeletal radiologist is needed, since these professionals are generally only located in large metropolitan areas working during daytime hours. Teleradiology allows for specialists to be available at all times. Teleradiology utilizes standard network technologies such as the Internet, telephone lines, wide area networks, local area networks (LAN) and the latest advanced technologies such as medical cloud computing. Specialized software is used to transmit the images and enable the radiologist to effectively analyze potentially hundreds of images of a given study. Technologies such as advanced graphics processing, voice recognition, artificial intelligence, and image compression are often used in teleradiology. Through teleradiology and mobile DICOM viewers, images can be sent to another part of the hospital or to other locations around the world with equal effort. Teleradiology is a growth technology given that imaging procedures are growing approximately 15% annually against an increase of only 2% in the radiologist population. == Reports == Teleradiology services commonly provide either preliminary or final interpretations of medical imaging studies. Preliminary reads are frequently used in emergency settings to support immediate clinical decisions and may include direct communication of critical findings to the referring physician. Some providers report turnaround times of approximately 30 minutes for emergency cases, with faster processing for time-sensitive conditions such as stroke. Final reads are definitive and used in official patient records and billing. These reports typically include all relevant findings and may require access to prior imaging and clinical data. Teleradiology is also employed to provide off-hour or overflow coverage for healthcare institutions lacking continuous on-site radiology staffing. == Subspecialties == Some teleradiologists are fellowship trained and have a wide variety of subspecialty expertise including such difficult-to-find areas as neuroradiology, pediatric neuroradiology, thoracic imaging, musculoskeletal radiology, mammography, and nuclear cardiology. There are also various medical practitioners who are not radiologists that take on studies in radiology to become sub specialists in their respected fields, an example of this is dentistry where oral and maxillofacial radiology allows those in dentistry to specialize in the acquisition and interpretation of radiographic imaging studies performed for diagnosis of treatment guidance for conditions affecting the maxillofacial region. == Teleultrasound == Teleradiology infrastructure has also been adapted to support point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in remote and austere environments. In teleultrasound—also known as telementored ultrasound—a remote expert guides a non-specialist in real time during image acquisition. This technique has been successfully demonstrated in extreme settings, including aboard the International Space Station, on Mount Everest, and during helicopter flight. == Regulations == In the United States, Medicare and Medicaid laws require the teleradiologist to be on U.S. soil in order to qualify for reimbursement of the Final Read. In addition, advanced teleradiology systems must also be HIPAA compliant, which helps to ensure patients' privacy. HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) is a uniform, federal floor of privacy protections for consumers. It limits the ways that entities can use patients' personal information and protects the privacy of all medical information no matter what form it is in. Quality teleradiology must abide by important HIPAA rules to ensure patients' privacy is protected. Also State laws governing the licensing requirements and medical malpractice insurance coverage required for physicians vary from state to state. Ensuring compliance with these laws is a significant overhead expense for larger multi-state teleradiology groups. Medicare (Australia) has identical requirements to that of the United States, where the guidelines are provided by the Department of Health and Ageing, and government based payments fall under the Health Insurance Act. The regulations in Australia are also conducted at both federal and state levels, ensuring that strict guidelines are adhered to at all times, with regular yearly updates and amendments are introduced (usually around March and November of every year), ensuring that the legislation is kept up to date with changes in the industry. One of the most recent changes to Medicare and radiology / teleradiology in Australia was the introduction of the Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation Scheme (DIAS) on 1 July 2008. DIAS was introduced to further improve the quality of Diagnostic Imaging and to amend the Health Insurance Act. == Industry growth == Until the late 1990s teleradiology was primarily used by individual radiologists to interpret occasional emergency studies from offsite locations, often in the radiologists home. The connections were made through standard analog phone lines. Teleradiology expanded rapidly as the growth of the internet and broad band combined with new CT scanner technology to become an essential tool in trauma cases in emergency rooms throughout the country. The occasional 2–3 x-ray studies a week soon became 3–10 CT scans, or more, a night. Because ER physicians are not trained to read CT scans or MRIs, radiologists went from working 8–10 hours a day, five and half days a week to a schedule of 24 hours a day, 7 days a week coverage. This became a particularly acute challenge in smaller rural facilities that only had one solo radiologist with no other to share call. These circumstances spawned a post-dot.com boom of firms and groups that provided medical outsourcing, off-site teleradiology on-call services to hospitals and Radiology Groups around the country. As an example, a teleradiology firm might cover trauma at a hospital in Indiana with doctors based in Texas. Some firms even used overseas doctors in locations like Australia and India. Nighthawk, founded by Paul Berger, was the first to station U.S. licensed radiologists overseas (initially Australia and later Switzerland) to maximize the time zone difference to provide nightcall in U.S. hospitals. Currently, teleradiology firms are facing pricing pressures. Industry consolidation is likely as there are more than 500 of these firms, large and small, throughout the United States.

Light scanning photomacrography

Light Scanning Photomacrography (LSP), also known as Scanning Light Photomacrography (SLP) or Deep-Field Photomacrography, is a photographic film technique that allows for high magnification light imaging with exceptional depth of field (DOF). This method overcomes the limitations of conventional macro photography, which typically only keeps a portion of the subject in acceptable focus at high magnifications. == Historical background == The principles of LSP were first documented in the early 1960s by Dan McLachlan Jr., who highlighted its capability for extreme focal depth in microscopy and in 1968 patented the process. The technique was revived and further developed in the 1980s by photographers such as Darwin Dale and Nile Root, a faculty member at the Rochester Institute of Technology. In the early 1990s, William Sharp and Charles Kazilek, both researchers at Arizona State University, also published articles describing their technique and system setup for capturing SLP images. == Predecessor to stack image photography == Light Scanning Photomacrography offered a powerful analog tool for high-detail imaging in the age of film photography. It provided a comprehensive depth of field, making it invaluable in scientific and biomedical photography. As technology and techniques continue to evolve, LSP has been replaced by digital image focus stacking. This technique uses a collection of images captured in series at different focal depths, which are then processed using computer software to create a single image with a greater focus depth than any single image. == LSP technique and results == LSP involves the use of a thin plane of light that scans across the subject, which is mounted on a stage moving perpendicular to the film plane. The technique utilizes traditional optics and is governed by the physical laws of depth of field. By moving the subject through a narrow band of illumination, the entire subject can be recorded in sharp focus from the nearest details to the farthest ones. This analog process produces sharp and detailed images by slowly recording the image on film as the specimen passes through the sheet of light that is thinner than the effective DOF. Because the image is captured at the same relative distance from the camera lens, the resulting images are axonometric rather than perspective projection, which is what the human eye sees and is typically captured by a film camera. Because all parts of an LSP image are captured at the same distance from the lens, relative measurements can be taken from an LSP photograph and can be used for comparison. == Equipment and setup == A typical LSP setup includes: A stage that can move the subject perpendicular to the film plane. Light sources, in some cases modified projectors, are used to project a thin plane of light. A camera mounted on a stable stand such as a tabletop copy stand. In 1991, Sharp and Kazilek described their SLP system that used three Kodak Ektagraphic slide projectors with zoom lenses to create a thin plane of light. The projectors each had a slide mount with two razor blades placed edge-to-edge to create a thin slit for the light to pass through. The image was captured using a Nikon FE-2 SLR camera mounted above the specimen. Kodachrome 25 slide film was used to record the image and to minimize film grain size and maximize image sharpness == Commercial systems == A commercial SLP instrument was produced by the Irvine Optical Corp. Their DYNAPHOT system was based on a photomacroscope and could capture images on 4x5 film. The instrument came with two or three illumination sources and a motorized specimen stage. The system advertised a 2X – 40X magnification range and the ability to capture images in black and white and color. Other systems have been developed by Nile Root and Theodore Clarke and reported higher magnification (up to 100X). == LSP process == Alignment and Focusing: The light sources are aligned and focused to project a thin, consistent plane of light across the subject. Stage Movement: The subject stage moves at a controlled speed, scanning through the plane of light. Image Capture: The camera shutter is set to a long exposure or can be opened and closed manually. As the subject moves through the illuminated plane, it is recorded on the film. This process is very much like painting an image onto the film using photons instead of paint. == Applications == LSP was particularly useful in biomedical photography, where it was used to document magnified subjects with increased depth of field over traditional macro and micro photography. It has been employed to capture detailed images of biological specimens, such as imaging small insects and their parts. SLP has been used to document shell collections for scientific documentation and research. Other applications include forensic science, mineralogy, and the imaging of fractured surfaces and parts == Advantages and challenges of LSP imaging == === Advantages === Exceptional depth of field: Subjects are rendered in sharp focus throughout. High magnification: Detailed images at significant magnification without sacrificing DOF. Analog precision: Provides a non-digital solution with accurate image representation. Versatility: Can be used for a range of subject sizes, from macro to non-macro scales. === Challenges === Technical complexity: Requires precise setup and alignment. Exposure time: Typically requires long exposure times due to the scanning process. Contrast control: The highly directional lighting can create harsh shadows and high contrast, which may need to be managed. Digital competition: Focus stacking has largely replaced LSP in the digital era due to convenience and flexibility. == DIY contributions == Enthusiasts and researchers have contributed to the development and accessibility of LSP by creating and sharing DIY guides. These contributions have enabled others to build their own LSP systems using readily available materials and components. Nile Root's publications provide detailed instructions and recommendations for constructing an LSP setup. These DIY systems have allowed a wider audience to explore and utilize the benefits of LSP imaging in various fields.

Algorithmic probability

In algorithmic information theory, algorithmic probability, also known as Solomonoff probability, is a mathematical method of assigning a prior probability to a given observation. It was invented by Ray Solomonoff in the 1960s. It is used in inductive inference theory and analyses of algorithms. In his general theory of inductive inference, Solomonoff uses the method together with Bayes' rule to obtain probabilities of prediction for an algorithm's future outputs. In the mathematical formalism used, the observations have the form of finite binary strings viewed as outputs of Turing machines, and the universal prior is a probability distribution over the set of finite binary strings calculated from a probability distribution over programs (that is, inputs to a universal Turing machine). The prior is universal in the Turing-computability sense, i.e. no string has zero probability. It is not computable, but it can be approximated. Formally, the probability P {\displaystyle P} is not a probability and it is not computable. It is only "lower semi-computable" and a "semi-measure". By "semi-measure", it means that 0 ≤ ∑ x P ( x ) < 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \sum _{x}P(x)<1} . That is, the "probability" does not actually sum up to one, unlike actual probabilities. This is because some inputs to the Turing machine causes it to never halt, which means the probability mass allocated to those inputs is lost. By "lower semi-computable", it means there is a Turing machine that, given an input string x {\displaystyle x} , can print out a sequence y 1 < y 2 < ⋯ {\displaystyle y_{1}

FIRST Global Challenge

The FIRST Global Challenge is a yearly robotics competition organized by the International First Committee Association. It promotes STEM education and careers for youth and was created by Dean Kamen in 2016 as an expansion of FIRST, an organization with similar objectives. == History == FIRST Global is a trade name for the International First Committee Association, a nonprofit corporation based in Manchester, New Hampshire, with a 501(c)(3) designation from the IRS. The nonprofit was founded by the co-founder of FIRST, Dean Kamen, with the objective of promoting STEM education and careers in the developing world through Olympics-style robotics competitions. Former US Congressman, Joe Sestak was the organization's president in 2017, but left after the 2017 Challenge. Each year, the FIRST Global Challenge is held in a different city. For example, Mexico City was selected to host the 2018 Challenge after the United States hosted the 2017 edition in Washington, DC. This is a change from FIRST's system of championships, where one city hosts for several years at a time. In May 2020, it was announced that FIRST Global would not host a traditional challenge in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and shifted to a remote model. One of the three champions were Team Bangladesh. In 2022, FIRST Global returned to in-person events with the 2022 Challenge in Geneva, Switzerland. == Editions == === Washington, D.C. 2017 === The 2017 FIRST Global Challenge was held in Washington, D.C., from July 16–18, and the challenge was the use of robots to separate different colored balls, representing clean water and impurities in water, symbolizing the Engineering Grand Challenge (based on the Millennium Development Goal) of improving access to clean water in the developing world. Around 160 teams composed of 15- to 18-year-olds from 157 countries participated, and around 60% of teams were created or led by young women. Six continental teams also participated. === Mexico City 2018 === The 2018 FIRST Global Challenge was held in Mexico City from August 15–18. The 2018 Challenge was called Energy Impact and explored the impact of various types of energy on the world and how they can be made more sustainable. In the challenge, robots worked together in teams of three to give cubes to human players, turn a crank, and score cubes in goals in order to generate electrical power. The challenge was based on three Engineering Grand Challenges; making solar energy affordable, making fusion energy a reality, and creating carbon sequestration methods. === Dubai 2019 === The 2019 challenge, called Ocean Opportunities, was held in Dubai from October 24–27 and was the first challenge hosted outside of North America. The challenge was themed around clearing the ocean of pollutants, and had two alliances of three teams each attempting to score large and small balls representing pollutants into processing areas and a processing barge. The processing barge had multiple levels, with higher levels worth more points. At the end of the match, robots "docked" with the barge by driving onto or climbing up it, with climbing worth more points. The event was opened by Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai. === Geneva 2022 === The 2022 challenge called Carbon Capture, was held in Geneva from October 13–16. The challenge was themed around removing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the atmosphere. In the Carbon Capture game, six different countries worked together to capture and store black balls representing carbon particles. The storage tower had multiple cantilevered bars that the robots mounted to, with the higher bars worth a greater multiplier. At the end of a match, robots "docked" on the storage tower's base or climbed the bars with their alliance indicator ball. Each match started with a "global alliance" of six countries, then divided into two "regional alliances" each consisting of three countries. The event was opened by Dr. Martina Hirayama, Switzerland State Secretary for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). === Singapore 2023 === The 2023 challenge, called Hydrogen Horizons, was held in Singapore from October 7–10. The challenge is themed around renewable energy with a focus on hydrogen technologies. === Athens 2024 === The 2024 challenge was hosted in the Peace and Friendship Stadium in Attica, Greece. === Panama 2025 === The 2025 challenge, Eco Equilibrium, was hosted in the Panama Convention Centre in Panama City, Panama. == Subordinate programs == === Global STEM Corps === The Global STEM Corps is a FIRST Global initiative that connects qualified volunteer mentors with students in developing countries to prepare them for competitions. === New Technology Experience === The New Technology Experience (NTE) is an annual component of the FIRST Global Challenge that was added to the organization's offerings in 2021. It was established as a means for the student community to stay current with cutting-edge technology and is integrated with each year's theme. The 2021 NTE was the CubeSat Prototype Challenge. The 2022 NTE, Carbon Countermeasures, was presented in partnership with XPRIZE.