Attensity was an American company that provided social analytics and engagement applications for social customer relationship management (social CRM). Attensity's text analytics software applications extracted facts, relationships and sentiment from unstructured data. == History == Attensity was founded in 2000. An early investor in Attensity was In-Q-Tel, which funds technology to support the missions of the US Government and the broader DOD. InTTENSITY, an independent company that has combined Inxight with Attensity Software (the only joint development project that combines two InQTel funded software packages), was the exclusive distributor and outlet for Attensity in the Federal Market. In 2009, Attensity Corp., then based in Palo Alto, merged with Germany's Empolis and Living-e AG to form Attensity Group. In 2010, Attensity Group acquired Biz360, a provider of social media monitoring and market intelligence solutions. In early 2012, Attensity Group divested itself of the Empolis business unit via a management buyout; that unit currently conducts business under its pre-merger name. Attensity Group was a closely held private company. Its majority shareholder was Aeris Capital, a private Swiss investment office advising a high-net-worth individual and his charitable foundation. Foundation Capital, Granite Ventures, and Scale Venture Partners were among Biz360's investors and thus became shareholders in Attensity Group. In February 2016, Attensity's IP assets were acquired by InContact, and Attensity closed.
Anderson's rule (computer science)
In the field of computer security, Anderson's rule refers to a principle formulated by Ross J. Anderson: systems that handle sensitive personal information involve a trilemma of security, functionality, and scale, of which you can choose any two. A system that has information on many data subjects and to which many people require access is hard to secure unless its functionality is severely restricted. If it has rich functionality, you may have to restrict the number of people with access, or accept that some information will leak.
Evolving intelligent system
In computer science, an evolving intelligent system is a fuzzy logic system which improves the own performance by evolving rules. The technique is known from machine learning, in which external patterns are learned by an algorithm. Fuzzy logic based machine learning works with neuro-fuzzy systems. Intelligent systems have to be able to evolve, self-develop, and self-learn continuously in order to reflect a dynamically evolving environment. The concept of Evolving Intelligent Systems (EISs) was conceived around the turn of the century with the phrase EIS itself coined for the first time by Angelov and Kasabov in a 2006 IEEE newsletter and expanded in a 2010 text. EISs develop their structure, functionality and internal knowledge representation through autonomous learning from data streams generated by the possibly unknown environment and from the system self-monitoring. EISs consider a gradual development of the underlying (fuzzy or neuro-fuzzy) system structure and differ from evolutionary and genetic algorithms which consider such phenomena as chromosomes crossover, mutation, selection and reproduction, parents and off-springs. The evolutionary fuzzy and neuro systems are sometimes also called "evolving" which leads to some confusion. This was more typical for the first works on this topic in the late 1990s. == Implementations == EISs can be implemented, for example, using neural networks or fuzzy rule-based models. The first neural networks which consider an evolving structure were published in. These were later expanded by N. Kasabov and P. Angelov for the neuro-fuzzy models. P. Angelov introduced the evolving fuzzy rule-based systems (EFSs) as the first mathematical self-learning model that can dynamically evolve its internal structure and is human interpretable and coined the phrase EFS. Contemporarily, the offline incremental approach for learning an EIS, namely, EFuNN, was proposed by N. Kasabov. P. Angelov, D. Filev, N. Kasabov and O. Cordon organised the first IEEE Symposium on EFSs in 2006 (the proceedings of the conference can be found in). EFSs include a formal (and mathematically sound) learning mechanism to extract it from streaming data. One of the earliest and the most widely cited comprehensive survey on EFSs was done in 2008. Later comprehensive surveys on EFS methods with real applications were done in 2011 and 2016 by E. Lughofer. Other works that contributed further to this area in the following years expanded it to evolving participatory learning, evolving grammar, evolving decision trees, evolving human behaviour modelling, self-calibrating (evolving) sensors (eSensors), evolving fuzzy rule-based classifiers, evolving fuzzy controllers, autonomous fault detectors. More recently, the stability of the evolving fuzzy rule-based systems that consist of the structure learning and the fuzzily weighted recursive least square parameter update method has been proven by Rong. Generalized EFS, which allow rules to be arbitrarily rotated in the feature space and thus to improve their data representability, have been proposed in with significant extensions in towards 'smartness' of the rule bases (thus, termed as "Generalized Smart EFS"), allowing more interpretability and reducing curse of dimensionality. The generalized rule structure was also successfully used in the context of evolving neuro-fuzzy systems. Several facets and challenges for achieving more transparent and understandable rule bases in EFS have been discussed by E. Lughofer in. EISs form the theoretical and methodological basis for the Autonomous Learning Machines (ALMA) and autonomous multi-model systems (ALMMo) as well as of the Autonomous Learning Systems. Evolving Fuzzy Rule-based classifiers, in particular, is a very powerful new concept that offers much more than simply incremental or online classifiers – it can cope with new classes being added or existing classes being merged. This is much more than just adapting to new data samples being added or classification surfaces being evolved. Fuzzy rule-based classifiers are the methodological basis of a new approach to deep learning that was until now considered as a form of multi-layered neural networks. Deep Learning offers high precision levels surpassing the level of human ability and grabbed the imagination of the researchers, industry and the wider public. However, it has a number of intrinsic constraints and limitations. These include: The "black box", opaque internal structure which has millions of parameters and involves ad hoc decisions on the number of layers and algorithm parameters. The requirement for a huge amount of training data samples, computational resources (usually requiring GPUs and/or HPC) and time (usually requiring many hours of training). Iterative search. Requires retraining for new situations (is not evolving). Does not have proven convergence and stability. Most, if not all, of the above limitations can be avoided with the use of the Deep (Fuzzy) Rule-based Classifiers, which were recently introduced based on ALMMo, while achieving similar or even better performance. The resulting prototype-based IF...THEN...models are fully interpretable and dynamically evolving (they can adapt quickly and automatically to new data patterns or even new classes). They are non-parametric and, therefore, their training is non-iterative and fast (it can take few milliseconds per data sample/image on a normal laptop which contrasts with the multiple hours the current deep learning methods require for training even when they use GPUs and HPC). Moreover, they can be trained incrementally, online, or in real-time. Another aspect of Evolving Fuzzy Rule-based classifiers has been proposed in, which, in case of multi-class classification problems, achieves the reduction of class imbalance by cascadability into class sub-spaces and an increased flexibility and performance for adding new classes on the fly from streaming samples.
Tales from the Loop (role-playing game)
Tales from the Loop (Swedish: Ur Varselklotet), subtitled "Roleplaying in the '80s That Never Was", is an alternative history science fiction tabletop role-playing game published in 2017 by Free League Publishing, the international arm of Swedish game and book publisher Fria Ligan AB, and Modiphius Entertainment. The game, based on the art of Simon Stålenhag, envisions an alternative world where a group of bored and ignored preteens and teens solve mysteries caused by new technology near their hometown. == Description == === Setting === Tales from the Loop is set in an alternative history world taken from the artwork of Simon Stålenhag. According to this alternative timeline, back in the 1940s, research began on particle accelerators. In the 1960s, two massive underground particle accelerators were built in Sweden and Colorado with the promise of a harvest of technological marvels that would change everyone's lives. Tales from the Loop is set twenty years later, in the late 1980s, and the better life has not materialized. Although the particle accelerators have created robots and large skyships, the detritus of failed experiments and the ruins of abandoned high tech company buildings litter the landscape. Generally the life of the average family has not changed for the better. A campaign can either be set in the Mälaren Islands, west of the Swedish capital of Stockholm, or in a city in the Southwest United States that resembles Boulder City, Nevada. There is also a step-by-step guide for the gamemaster to use their own hometown. === Character generation === Player characters are preteens and young teenagers age 10–15 who live in a society where they are bored and largely left to themselves. Players can choose archetypes for their characters including Bookworm, Jock, Troublemaker, Popular Kid and Weirdo. Unlike most role-playing games, characters in Tales from the Loop cannot be killed, although in an ongoing campaign or due to an in-game effect, they are removed from the game if they reach the age of sixteen. === Game system === The game uses the Year Zero Engine first developed by Tomas Härenstam for the post-apocalyptic role-playing game Mutant: Year Zero. (Härenstam served as the editor and project manager for Tales from the Loop.) Problems are resolved by rolling a pool of six-sided dice, with any 6 rolled marking success. Attributes and skills (Sneak, Force, Move, Build, Tinker, Calculate, Contact, Charm, Lead, Investigate, Comprehend, and Empathize) may allow the player to add more dice to the dice pool, increasing the chances of success. However, if a character has earned a condition such as Scared or Injured, dice are removed from the dice pool. === Gameplay === The game principles are that life for the characters is dull and boring, but the area around the town is full of wonderful, mysterious things. An adventure is set up as a Mystery, and in order to successfully resolve the Mystery, characters must overcome a series of Troubles, which can range from having to be home by a certain time to dealing with a bully to disarming or otherwise overcoming a booby-trap on a door that must be opened. Each Mystery is played as a series of scenes, much like a TV drama. Although the gamemaster leads the players into the Mystery, each scene is set collaboratively with the players before action continues. As critic Jukka Kauppinen noted, "The players and the gamemaster take turns verbally staging a new scene — where we are, what it's like there — and only then what we do." === Campaign === The book presents a chronologically-linked set of four Mysteries called "The Four Seasons of Mad Science" that take place over a calendar year: "Summer Break and Killer Birds": The Kids hears pigeons having a conversation and investigate "Grown-Up Attraction": Adults start disappearing without any sign of struggle. "Creatures from the Cretaceous": The search for a missing dog leads to the discovery of creatures that don't belong in our time "I, Wagner": The Kids discover a body in a stream, and are drawn into a Mystery with robots and humans that may affect them closely. == Publication history == In 2017, Swedish artist Simon Stålenhag was raising money on Kickstarter to publish a book of his art titled Tales from the Loop. One of the stretch goals offered was the creation of a role-playing game. A second Kickstarter campaign to publish the role-playing game was initiated by Fria Ligan AB, who surpassed their crowdfunding goal and raised a total of 3,745,896 kr from 5,600 backers. The role-playing game Tales from the Loop was subsequently published as a 184-page hardcover book in 2017 by Free League Publishing, the international arm of Swedish game and book publisher Fria Ligan AB, and Modiphius Entertainment. Cover art and interior art were by Stålenhag, and cartography was by Christian Granath. A stand-alone expansion, Things from the Flood (Swedish: Flodskörden), based on Stålenhag's art book of the same name, was created by Nils Hintze, Rickard Antroia, and Tomas Härenstam. The 216-page hardcover book was published in 2019 with cover art by Stålenhag, interior art by Stålenhag and Reine Rosenberg, and cartography by Christian Granath. In 2020, the setting of the role-playing game was transferred to the TV series Tales from the Loop developed by Nathanial Halpern and Simon Stålenhag. The series tells eight stories of children's encounters with strange technology. == Reception == Shut Up & Sit Down praised Tales from the Loop for its comfortable, contemporary setting, simple rules that make the game easy to run, and the alternation between sci-fi and the kids' lives, but criticized the Type system for characters, noting "a suggested 'Pride' for the Weirdo involved being homosexual –– the only mention of queerness in the entire game. Those of us who identify as GLBTQ bristled at that: why was only the Weirdo queer, with queerness as a (possibly secret) Pride? Why not more fully address being a GLBTQ kid in the 1980s?" The review concluded, "For new RPG players, Tales is a decent game that you'll enjoy and that will make your heart burst. But you need an experienced GM who’s able to either alter the book’s mysteries or create their own, and who can put in work when poor dice rolls hold the players back." Rob Weiland of Geek & Sundry named Tales from the Loop 2017's best RPG release and praised Stålenhag's art, the collaborative nature between the GM and players, and the simplicity of running the game. Weiland concluded, "It has a simple system that is easy to explain but holds up under several plays. It has a setting that’s immediately evocative but also leaves plenty of room for GMs to build out their own world. It offers players a chance to experience the rush of memory, the pain of childhood and the wonder of movies." In a review of Tales from the Loop in Black Gate, Andrew Zimmerman Jones said, "Though not based directly on an established franchise, it draws richly from elements of popular culture that will make it resonate with many players. The focus on narrative play also means it’s a good game for people who aren’t necessarily big into learning a ton of new rules." Jukka Kauppinen, writing for the Finnish games magazine Skrolli, called the game, "downright delicious in its diversity. The science fiction world created by the Swedish artist Simon Stälenhag is, after all, both delightful vintage and tickling novelty." Kauppinen concluded, "This mutual storytelling and interaction makes this game more of a campfire circle than a traditional role-playing game. At the same time, its setting in the real world, tinged with science fiction and even horror, creates a delicious and unique adventure environment." In his 2023 book Monsters, Aliens, and Holes in the Ground, RPG historian Stu Horvath noted that the game system "pushes the players to constantly reevaluate their characters' relationships with the everyday world, for better or worse. It won't be long before navigating entanglements with parents, teachers, siblings and bullies proves just as risky to the characters, and central to the players' experience, as trying to find out what happened with the time portal or dealing with a rampaging robot." Horvath concluded, "The appeal of Tales from the Loop is Stålenhag's deep shadows and purple dusks. They hide the dangers and mysteries that often act [as] an escape hatch, a way to avoid prosaic problems." == Awards == At the 2017 Golden Geek Awards, Tales of the Loop won "RPG of the Year", and was a finalist for " Best RPG Artwork/Presentation" At the 2017 ENnie Awards, Tales from the Loops won five Gold Medals: Product of the Year Best Writing Best Setting Best Game Best Art, Interior
Residuated lattice
In abstract algebra, a residuated lattice is an algebraic structure that is simultaneously a lattice x ≤ y and a monoid x•y that admits operations x\z and z/y, loosely analogous to division or implication, when x•y is viewed as multiplication or conjunction, respectively. Called respectively right and left residuals, these operations coincide when the monoid is commutative. The general concept was introduced by Morgan Ward and Robert P. Dilworth in 1939. Examples, some of which existed prior to the general concept, include Boolean algebras, Heyting algebras, residuated Boolean algebras, relation algebras, and MV-algebras. Residuated semilattices omit the meet operation ∧, for example Kleene algebras and action algebras. == Definition == In mathematics, a residuated lattice is an algebraic structure L = (L, ≤, •, I) such that (i) (L, ≤) is a lattice. (ii) (L, •, I) is a monoid. (iii) For all z there exists for every x a greatest y, and for every y a greatest x, such that x•y ≤ z (the residuation properties). In (iii), the "greatest y", being a function of z and x, is denoted x\z and called the right residual of z by x. Think of it as what remains of z on the right after "dividing" z on the left by x. Dually, the "greatest x" is denoted z/y and called the left residual of z by y. An equivalent, more formal statement of (iii) that uses these operations to name these greatest values is (iii)' for all x, y, z in L, y ≤ x\z ⇔ x•y ≤ z ⇔ x ≤ z/y. As suggested by the notation, the residuals are a form of quotient. More precisely, for a given x in L, the unary operations x• and x\ are respectively the lower and upper adjoints of a Galois connection on L, and dually for the two functions •y and /y. By the same reasoning that applies to any Galois connection, we have yet another definition of the residuals, namely, x•(x\y) ≤ y ≤ x\(x•y), and (y/x)•x ≤ y ≤ (y•x)/x, together with the requirement that x•y be monotone in x and y. (When axiomatized using (iii) or (iii)' monotonicity becomes a theorem and hence not required in the axiomatization.) These give a sense in which the functions x• and x\ are pseudoinverses or adjoints of each other, and likewise for •x and /x. This last definition is purely in terms of inequalities, noting that monotonicity can be axiomatized as x • y ≤ (x∨z) • y and similarly for the other operations and their arguments. Moreover, any inequality x ≤ y can be expressed equivalently as an equation, either x∧y = x or x∨y = y. This along with the equations axiomatizing lattices and monoids then yields a purely equational definition of residuated lattices, provided the requisite operations are adjoined to the signature (L, ≤, •, I) thereby expanding it to (L, ∧, ∨, •, I, /, \). When thus organized, residuated lattices form an equational class or variety, whose homomorphisms respect the residuals as well as the lattice and monoid operations. Note that distributivity x • (y ∨ z) = (x • y) ∨ (x • z) and x•0 = 0 are consequences of these axioms and so do not need to be made part of the definition. This necessary distributivity of • over ∨ does not in general entail distributivity of ∧ over ∨, that is, a residuated lattice need not be a distributive lattice. However distributivity of ∧ over ∨ is entailed when • and ∧ are the same operation, a special case of residuated lattices called a Heyting algebra. Alternative notations for x•y include x◦y, x;y (relation algebra), and x⊗y (linear logic). Alternatives for I include e and 1'. Alternative notations for the residuals are x → y for x\y and y ← x for y/x, suggested by the similarity between residuation and implication in logic, with the multiplication of the monoid understood as a form of conjunction that need not be commutative. When the monoid is commutative the two residuals coincide. When not commutative, the intuitive meaning of the monoid as conjunction and the residuals as implications can be understood as having a temporal quality: x•y means x and then y, x → y means had x (in the past) then y (now), and y ← x means if-ever x (in the future) then y (at that time), as illustrated by the natural language example at the end of the examples. == Examples == One of the original motivations for the study of residuated lattices was the lattice of (two-sided) ideals of a ring. Given a ring R, the ideals of R, denoted Id(R), forms a complete lattice with set intersection acting as the meet operation and "ideal addition" acting as the join operation. The monoid operation • is given by "ideal multiplication", and the element R of Id(R) acts as the identity for this operation. Given two ideals A and B in Id(R), the residuals are given by A / B := { r ∈ R ∣ r B ⊆ A } {\displaystyle A/B:=\{r\in R\mid rB\subseteq A\}} B ∖ A := { r ∈ R ∣ B r ⊆ A } {\displaystyle B\setminus A:=\{r\in R\mid Br\subseteq A\}} It is worth noting that {0}/B and B\{0} are respectively the left and right annihilators of B. This residuation is related to the conductor (or transporter) in commutative algebra written as (A:B)=A/B. One difference in usage is that B need not be an ideal of R: it may just be a subset. Boolean algebras and Heyting algebras are commutative residuated lattices in which x•y = x∧y (whence the unit I is the top element 1 of the algebra) and both residuals x\y and y/x are the same operation, namely implication x → y. The second example is quite general since Heyting algebras include all finite distributive lattices, as well as all chains or total orders, for example the unit interval [0,1] in the real line, or the integers and ± ∞ {\displaystyle \pm \infty } . The structure (Z, min, max, +, 0, −, −) (the integers with subtraction for both residuals) is a commutative residuated lattice such that the unit of the monoid is not the greatest element (indeed there is no least or greatest integer), and the multiplication of the monoid is not the meet operation of the lattice. In this example the inequalities are equalities because − (subtraction) is not merely the adjoint or pseudoinverse of + but the true inverse. Any totally ordered group under addition such as the rationals or the reals can be substituted for the integers in this example. The nonnegative portion of any of these examples is an example provided min and max are interchanged and − is replaced by monus, defined (in this case) so that x-y = 0 when x ≤ y and otherwise is ordinary subtraction. A more general class of examples is given by the Boolean algebra of all binary relations on a set X, namely the power set of X2, made a residuated lattice by taking the monoid multiplication • to be composition of relations and the monoid unit to be the identity relation I on X consisting of all pairs (x,x) for x in X. Given two relations R and S on X, the right residual R\S of S by R is the binary relation such that x(R\S)y holds just when for all z in X, zRx implies zSy (notice the connection with implication). The left residual is the mirror image of this: y(S/R)x holds just when for all z in X, xRz implies ySz. This can be illustrated with the binary relations < and > on {0,1} in which 0 < 1 and 1 > 0 are the only relationships that hold. Then x(>\<)y holds just when x = 1, while x()y holds just when y = 0, showing that residuation of < by > is different depending on whether we residuate on the right or the left. This difference is a consequence of the difference between <•> and >•<, where the only relationships that hold are 0(<•>)0 (since 0<1>0) and 1(>•<)1 (since 1>0<1). Had we chosen ≤ and ≥ instead of < and >, ≥\≤ and ≤/≥ would have been the same because ≤•≥ = ≥•≤, both of which always hold between all x and y (since x≤1≥y and x≥0≤y). The Boolean algebra 2Σ of all formal languages over an alphabet (set) Σ forms a residuated lattice whose monoid multiplication is language concatenation LM and whose monoid unit I is the language {ε} consisting of just the empty string ε. The right residual M\L consists of all words w over Σ such that Mw ⊆ L. The left residual L/M is the same with wM in place of Mw. The residuated lattice of all binary relations on X is finite just when X is finite, and commutative just when X has at most one element. When X is empty the algebra is the degenerate Boolean algebra in which 0 = 1 = I. The residuated lattice of all languages on Σ is commutative just when Σ has at most one letter. It is finite just when Σ is empty, consisting of the two languages 0 (the empty language {}) and the monoid unit I = {ε} = 1. The examples forming a Boolean algebra have special properties treated in the article on residuated Boolean algebras. == Residuated semilattice == A residuated semilattice is defined almost identically for residuated lattices, omitting just the meet operation ∧. Thus it is an algebraic structure L = (L, ∨, •, 1, /, \) satisfying all the residuated lattice equations as specified above except those containing an occurrence of the symbol ∧. The option of defining x ≤ y as x∧y = x is then not available, leaving on
Machine-learned interatomic potential
Machine-learned interatomic potentials (MLIPs), or simply machine learning potentials (MLPs), are interatomic potentials constructed using machine learning. Beginning in the 1990s, researchers have employed such programs to construct interatomic potentials by mapping atomic structures to their potential energies. These potentials are referred to as MLIPs or MLPs. Such machine learning potentials promised to fill the gap between density functional theory, a highly accurate but computationally intensive modelling method, and empirically derived or intuitively-approximated potentials, which were far lighter computationally but substantially less accurate. Improvements in artificial intelligence technology heightened the accuracy of MLPs while lowering their computational cost, increasing the role of machine learning in fitting potentials. Machine learning potentials began by using neural networks to tackle low-dimensional systems. While promising, these models could not systematically account for interatomic energy interactions; they could be applied to small molecules in a vacuum, or molecules interacting with frozen surfaces, but not much else – and even in these applications, the models often relied on force fields or potentials derived empirically or with simulations. These models thus remained confined to academia. Modern neural networks construct highly accurate and computationally light potentials, as theoretical understanding of materials science was increasingly built into their architectures and preprocessing. Almost all are local, accounting for all interactions between an atom and its neighbor up to some cutoff radius. There exist some nonlocal models, but these have been experimental for almost a decade. For most systems, reasonable cutoff radii enable highly accurate results. Almost all neural networks intake atomic coordinates and output potential energies. For some, these atomic coordinates are converted into atom-centered symmetry functions. From this data, a separate atomic neural network is trained for each element; each atomic network is evaluated whenever that element occurs in the given structure, and then the results are pooled together at the end. This process – in particular, the atom-centered symmetry functions which convey translational, rotational, and permutational invariances – has greatly improved machine learning potentials by significantly constraining the neural network search space. Other models use a similar process but emphasize bonds over atoms, using pair symmetry functions and training one network per atom pair. Other models to learn their own descriptors rather than using predetermined symmetry-dictating functions. These models, called message-passing neural networks (MPNNs), are graph neural networks. Treating molecules as three-dimensional graphs (where atoms are nodes and bonds are edges), the model takes feature vectors describing the atoms as input, and iteratively updates these vectors as information about neighboring atoms is processed through message functions and convolutions. These feature vectors are then used to predict the final potentials. The flexibility of this method often results in stronger, more generalizable models. In 2017, the first-ever MPNN model (a deep tensor neural network) was used to calculate the properties of small organic molecules. == Gaussian Approximation Potential (GAP) == One popular class of machine-learned interatomic potential is the Gaussian Approximation Potential (GAP), which combines compact descriptors of local atomic environments with Gaussian process regression to machine learn the potential energy surface of a given system. To date, the GAP framework has been used to successfully develop a number of MLIPs for various systems, including for elemental systems such as carbon, silicon, phosphorus, and tungsten, as well as for multicomponent systems such as Ge2Sb2Te5 and austenitic stainless steel, Fe7Cr2Ni. == Equivariant graph neural networks == A significant limitation of early MPNNs was that they were not inherently equivariant to rotations and reflections of atomic structures — meaning predictions could change depending on how a molecule was oriented in space. Beginning around 2021, a new class of models addressed this by incorporating equivariance directly into the message-passing layers using spherical harmonics and irreducible representations. Notable examples include NequIP (2021), MACE (2022), and GemNet-OC (2022). These equivariant architectures proved substantially more data-efficient and accurate than their predecessors, and became the dominant paradigm for high-accuracy MLIPs. == Universal MLIPs and large-scale datasets == Early MLIPs were system-specific, trained on a few thousand structures of a single material. A major shift occurred with the creation of large, chemically diverse datasets enabling models that generalize across many elements, bonding environments, and application domains — so-called universal MLIPs. A key driver was the Open Catalyst Project (OC20, OC22), a collaboration between Meta AI (FAIR) and Carnegie Mellon University launched in 2020. OC20 comprises approximately 1.3 million DFT relaxations across 82 elements, designed to accelerate the discovery of catalysts for renewable energy applications. It was among the first datasets large enough to train GNNs that generalize across diverse chemical systems, and established a widely-used benchmark for the field. A subsequent dataset, Open Direct Air Capture (OpenDAC 2023 and OpenDAC 2025), applied the same approach to carbon capture, providing a large computational database of metal-organic frameworks and sorbent candidates evaluated for CO₂ capture, generated using nearly 400 million CPU hours of quantum chemistry calculations in collaboration with Georgia Tech. These datasets revealed a new challenge: the GNN architectures most effective for atomic simulations were memory-intensive, as they model higher-order interactions between triplets or quadruplets of atoms, making it difficult to scale model size. Graph Parallelism, introduced by Sriram et al. (ICLR 2022), addressed this by distributing a single input graph across multiple GPUs — a distinct strategy from data parallelism (which distributes training examples) or model parallelism (which distributes layers). This enabled training GNNs with hundreds of millions to billions of parameters for the first time. Building on these foundations, Meta FAIR released the Universal Model for Atoms (UMA) in 2025, trained on approximately 500 million unique 3D atomic structures spanning molecules, materials, and catalysts — the largest training run to date for an MLIP. UMA introduced a Mixture of Linear Experts (MoLE) architecture, enabling one model to learn from datasets generated by different DFT codes and settings without significant inference overhead. It matches or surpasses specialized models across catalysis, materials, and molecular benchmarks without task-specific fine-tuning, and has been described as marking a "pre/post-UMA" divide in the field. == Applications == Catalyst discovery: MLIPs have significantly accelerated the computational screening of heterogeneous catalysts by replacing expensive DFT relaxations with fast neural network surrogates. The Open Catalyst Project explicitly targets this application, aiming to identify new catalysts for green hydrogen production and other renewable energy reactions. Carbon capture: The OpenDAC project applies universal MLIPs to screening sorbent materials for direct air capture of CO₂, a key technology for climate change mitigation. AI-accelerated screening allows evaluation of orders of magnitude more candidate materials than traditional DFT workflows. Drug discovery and molecular design: MLIPs are increasingly used in pharmaceutical research to model molecular conformations and binding energies. The Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, released by Meta FAIR in 2025, provides high-accuracy calculations for a large set of molecular systems to support this use case. Materials discovery: Universal MLIPs enable high-throughput screening of novel inorganic materials, including battery electrolytes, semiconductors, and superconductors, by rapidly estimating stability and properties across large chemical spaces.
TCEC Season 14
The 14th season of the Top Chess Engine Championship took place between 17 November 2018 and 24 February 2019. Stockfish was the defending champion, having defeated Komodo in the previous season's superfinal. The season is notable for two things: the emergence of two strong, new engines, the Komodo variant Komodo Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) and the neural network engine Leela Chess Zero, and the dramatic superfinal. Komodo MCTS and Leela fought their way from Division 4 and Division 3 respectively to the Premier Division, with Leela further qualifying for the superfinal against Stockfish. The superfinal was a topsy-turvy affair with the lead changing hands several times. It finished as the closest superfinal TCEC has ever seen, with Stockfish winning by a single game, 50.5–49.5 (+10 =81 -9). == Overview == === Structure === The season comprised five divisions: from the lowest Division 4 to the Premier Division. The top two engines of each division promote to the division above, while the bottom two engines relegate. The top two engines of the Premier Division contest a 100-game superfinal. The lengths of the opening books used increases as the divisions progress. The superfinal itself used a custom opening book designed by Jeroen Noomen. === Rules === The TCEC draw and win rules were slightly modified for Season 14. The game is now adjudicated as drawn if, after move 30, both engines have evals ±0.08 for five consecutive moves, and there are neither pawn moves nor a capture. Win adjudication now occurs if both engines have an eval of ±10 for five consecutive moves. Following the controversy over DeusX's participation last season, the uniqueness rule for neural networks was modified such that at least two of the following three hallmarks must be unique: The code for training the neural network The neural network (and weights file) itself The engine that executes this network This change meant DeusX did not meet the uniqueness criteria and therefore did not participate. Aside from this change, the season used the standard rules of the TCEC. == Results == === Division 4 === New entrant Komodo MCTS dominated Division 4, winning by a clear four points, although it did lose a game to second-place finisher rofChade. Fellow new entrant Scorpio NN performed badly and finished last, drawing only one game and losing the rest. === Division 3 === The neural network engine Leela Chess Zero had just missed promotion to Division 2 in the previous season. Since its relatively weak performance last season was partly due to hardware problems, and since it had shown a lot of improvement in strength, it was the hot favourite in this division. Leela lived up to its billing by comprehensively defeating everyone else. In a portent of future divisions however, Leela surprisingly dropped a game to third-place Arasan. Komodo MCTS was also improving quickly, and an updated version finished second behind Leela. The gap between second and third was 6.5 points, illustrating the gulf in class. === Division 2 === Although Division 2 engines are significantly stronger than Division 3, Leela and Komodo MCTS continued to dominate the competition, and again finished first and second. Komodo MCTS only lost one game to Leela, while Leela's tendency to occasionally lose to weaker engines saw her losing a game to 4th-placed Booot. Third place finisher Xiphos gave Leela and Komodo MCTS a run for their money, and was in the running up until the final rounds when it lost a crucial game to Leela. This loss left it one point behind Komodo MCTS in the final standings. === Division 1 === Leela and Komodo MCTS's rampage through the lower divisions continued, and they again finished first and second. In a demonstration of how much it had improved, Leela scored 20/28 in this division, the same score it had achieved in Division 2. This was also a TCEC points record for this division. However, Leela dropped a game against fourth-place finisher Chiron. Komodo MCTS, which had yet to lose a game in the lower divisions except to Leela, also conceded its first loss to third-place Fizbo. At the other end of the table, former champions Jonny and Fritz, which had not been updated, found themselves outclassed and finished second-last and last respectively; however with fellow competitor Ginkgo crashing five times (and therefore being disqualified), Jonny managed to stay in the division. The penultimate game for this division set a new TCEC moves record for a decisive game: 308 moves before Leela defeated Fritz. === Premier division === This was the strongest premier division ever, with multiple-time champions Stockfish, Komodo, and Houdini in the mix. Right from the start it became clear that Stockfish was in a league of its own, and it dominated the division, scoring wins against every other engine without losing a game. Second place however was a hotly-contested affair, with Leela, Komodo and Houdini neck-and-neck for most of the division. Houdini took the early lead, but Komodo gained second after winning two games by forfeit when its sibling Komodo MCTS crashed. This led to murmurs of a "Konspiracy". However, when both Komodo and Houdini failed to score more wins against the lower half of the field, Leela was able to take the lead. Halfway through the division the race was upended again when Leela went through a bad streak, losing three games in a row to Stockfish, Komodo, and Fire. This led to Komodo regaining second place, only for Komodo MCTS to crash yet again. By TCEC rules this meant Komodo MCTS was disqualified and all its scores were zeroed out, which put Leela back in second place. With three games left, Leela missed a win against Andscacs, which would've more or less secured her a place in the superfinal. Meanwhile, Komodo kept the division interesting by winning two of its last three games. Because Komodo had superior tiebreakers to Leela, this meant Komodo would qualify for the superfinal unless Leela managed to hold Stockfish to a draw with Black in the last game of the division. In a tense final game, Stockfish came close to winning, but missed the winning line. Leela managed to draw and qualified for the superfinal. At the other end of the table, it was quickly apparent that Ethereal and Andscacs were the weakest engines and would likely relegate. However, when Komodo MCTS was disqualified (and therefore relegated), it threw both engines a lifeline, since they could now stay in the division by beating the other. Andscacs was able to score a head-to-head win against Ethereal, but was crushed by Stockfish (+0 =2 -4) and Leela (+0 =3 -3). Ethereal didn't manage to score a win in the entire division, but did manage to score more draws than Andscacs, condemning Andscacs to relegation. === Superfinal === Going into the superfinal expectations were high for Leela: she had received a new network and had just won her first major competition when she defeated Houdini in the second TCEC cup. However, she had won the tournament without having played Stockfish (who had been surprisingly eliminated by Houdini in the semifinals). That, plus the fact that Stockfish dominated Premier Division and had never lost a match to Leela, left it unclear which engine was superior, although most spectators favored Stockfish. The superfinal turned out to be a roller-coaster. It began with Stockfish drawing first blood in game 7, and then scoring another win in game 10. Leela hit back with wins in game 11 and 13, but then lost games 20, 21, and 22. This gave Stockfish a 3-point lead. However, in the next 30 games, Leela was the only one to score wins: it first equalized by winning games 25, 27, and 29, and then took the lead by winning games 49 and 53. Stockfish won game 56, but Leela won game 63, maintaining her lead. There followed two dramatic games. In game 65, Leela built up a winning position. Stockfish showed a +153 evaluation, indicating that it had found a forced line leading to an endgame tablebase win; indeed analysis with 7-piece tablebases showed that Leela's position was winning. Under previous seasons' rules, the game would have been adjudicated as a win because Leela's evaluation was above 6.5. However under the new rules, Leela's +8.92 evaluation was not enough to adjudicate. It turned out that Leela could not see the winning line, and shuffled her pieces aimlessly, leading to a 50-move draw. In game 66, Stockfish was given a substantial advantage by the opening, but failed to make the most of it. The evaluations were leveling out to zero when the internet connection to the GPU servers was cut off. By tournament rules, this meant the game was replayed from scratch. After a further internet disconnection and restart, Stockfish handled the opening better and won, leaving Leela with a 1-point lead. In the last third of the superfinal, there followed more drama as Leela often built up strong advantages, but Stockfish showed great resourcefulness in defending inferior positions. Meanwh