Hallin's spheres is a theory of news reporting and its rhetorical framing posited by journalism historian Daniel C. Hallin in his 1986 book The Uncensored War to explain the news coverage of the Vietnam War. Hallin divides the world of political discourse into three concentric spheres: consensus, legitimate controversy, and deviance. In the sphere of consensus, journalists assume everyone agrees. The sphere of legitimate controversy includes the standard political debates, and journalists are expected to remain neutral. The sphere of deviance falls outside the bounds of legitimate debate, and journalists can ignore it. These boundaries shift, as public opinion shifts. Hallin's spheres, which deals with the media, are similar to the Overton window, which deals with public opinion generally, and posits a sliding scale of public opinion on any given issue ranging from conventional wisdom to unacceptable. Hallin used the concept of framing to describe the presentation and reception of issues in public. For example, framing the use of drugs as criminal activity can encourage the public to consider that behavior anti-social. Hallin's work was later referred to in the controversial formulation of the concept of an opinion corridor, in which the range of acceptable public opinion narrows, and opinion outside that corridor moves from legitimate controversy into deviance. == Description == === Sphere of consensus === This sphere contains those topics on which there is widespread agreement, or at least the perception thereof. Within the sphere of consensus, "journalists feel free to invoke a generalized 'we' and to take for granted shared values and shared assumptions". Examples include such things as motherhood and apple pie. For topics in this sphere, journalists feel free to be advocating cheerleaders without having to be neutral or present any opposing view point and be disinterested observers." === Sphere of legitimate controversy === For topics in this sphere rational and informed people hold differing views within limited range. These topics are therefore the most important to cover, and also ones upon which journalists are seemingly obliged to remain disinterested reporters, rather than advocating for or against a particular view. Schudson notes that Hallin, in his influential study of the US media during the Vietnam War, argues that journalism's commitment to objectivity has always been compartmentalized. That is, within a certain sphere—the sphere of legitimate controversy—journalists seek conscientiously to be balanced and objective. The work of Walter Williams professor at the University of Missouri, Rod Petersen, advanced the idea that priming—controlling the narratives that media covers—can be the tool that media use to get deviant news subjects into the legitimate controversial circles of new coverage. === Sphere of deviance === Topics in this sphere are rejected by journalists as being unworthy of general consideration. Such views are perceived as being out of hand, unfounded, taboo, or of such minor consequence that they are not newsworthy. Hallin argues that in the sphere of deviance, "journalists also depart from standard norms of objective reporting and feel authorized to treat as marginal, laughable, dangerous". They either avoid mentioning or ridicule the controversial subject as outside the bounds of acceptable controversy; and they censor the individuals and groups who are associated with it. A simple example: a person claiming that aliens are manipulating college basketball scores might have difficulty finding sports media coverage for such a claim. A more political example: the US media regulator FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" aimed at radio stations, advocated balance between right and left political news and opinions, yet specified that broadcasters did not have to reserve any space or time for Communist viewpoints. == Uses of the terms == Craig Watkins (2001, pp. 92–94) makes use of the Hallin's spheres in a paper examining ABC, CBS, and NBC television network television news coverage of the Million Man March, a demonstration that took place in Washington, D.C., on October 16, 1995. Watkins analyzes the dominant framing practices—problem definition, rhetorical devices, use of sources, and images—employed by journalists to make sense of this particular expression of political protest. He argues that Hallin's three spheres are a way for media framing practices to develop specific reportorial contexts, and each sphere develops its own distinct style of news reporting resources by different rhetorical tropes and discourses. Piers Robinson (2001, p. 536) uses the concept in relation to debates that have emerged over the extent to which the mass media serves elite interests or, alternatively, plays a powerful role in shaping political outcomes. His article reviews Hallin's spheres as an example of media-state relations, that highlights theoretical and empirical shortcomings in the 'manufacturing consent' thesis (Chomsky, McChesney). Robinson argues that a more nuanced and bi-directional understanding is needed of the direction of influence between media and the state that builds upon, rather than rejecting, existing theoretical accounts. Hallin's theory assumed a relatively homogenized media environment, where most producers were trying to reach most consumers. A more fractured media landscape can challenge this assumption because different audiences may place topics in different spheres, a concept related to the filter bubble, which posits that many members of the public choose to limit their media consumption to the areas of consensus and deviance that they personally prefer.
Confused deputy problem
In information security, a confused deputy is a computer program that is tricked by another program (with fewer privileges or less rights) into misusing its authority on the system. It is a specific type of privilege escalation. The confused deputy problem is often cited as an example of why capability-based security is important. Capability systems protect against the confused deputy problem, whereas access-control list–based systems do not. Such systems can mitigate the confused deputy problem by eliminating ambient authority, allowing programs to act only on resources for which they hold explicit capabilities, whereas access-control list–based systems are more susceptible to it. However, this protection depends on correct implementation; in formally verified capability systems such as seL4, it can be shown that the kernel enforces capability constraints correctly, preventing such behavior at the system level. == Example == In the original example of a confused deputy, there was a compiler program provided on a commercial timesharing service. Users could run the compiler and optionally specify a filename where it would write debugging output, and the compiler would be able to write to that file if the user had permission to write there. The compiler also collected statistics about language feature usage. Those statistics were stored in a file called "(SYSX)STAT", in the directory "SYSX". To make this possible, the compiler program was given permission to write to files in SYSX. But there were other files in SYSX: in particular, the system's billing information was stored in a file "(SYSX)BILL". A user ran the compiler and named "(SYSX)BILL" as the desired debugging output file. This produced a confused deputy problem. The compiler made a request to the operating system to open (SYSX)BILL. Even though the user did not have access to that file, the compiler did, so the open succeeded. The compiler wrote the compilation output to the file (here "(SYSX)BILL") as normal, overwriting it, and the billing information was destroyed. === The confused deputy === In this example, the compiler program is the deputy because it is acting at the request of the user. The program is seen as 'confused' because it was tricked into overwriting the system's billing file. Whenever a program tries to access a file, the operating system needs to know two things: which file the program is asking for, and whether the program has permission to access the file. In the example, the file is designated by its name, “(SYSX)BILL”. The program receives the file name from the user, but does not know whether the user had permission to write the file. When the program opens the file, the system uses the program's permission, not the user's. When the file name was passed from the user to the program, the permission did not go along with it; the permission was increased by the system silently and automatically. It is not essential to the attack that the billing file be designated by a name represented as a string. The essential points are that: the designator for the file does not carry the full authority needed to access the file; the program's own permission to access the file is used implicitly. == Other examples == A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) is an example of a confused deputy attack that uses the web browser to perform sensitive actions against a web application. A common form of this attack occurs when a web application uses a cookie to authenticate all requests transmitted by a browser. Using JavaScript, an attacker can force a browser into transmitting authenticated HTTP requests. The Samy computer worm used cross-site scripting (XSS) to turn the browser's authenticated MySpace session into a confused deputy. Using XSS the worm forced the browser into posting an executable copy of the worm as a MySpace message which was then viewed and executed by friends of the infected user. Clickjacking is an attack where the user acts as the confused deputy. In this attack a user thinks they are harmlessly browsing a website (an attacker-controlled website) but they are in fact tricked into performing sensitive actions on another website. An FTP bounce attack can allow an attacker to connect indirectly to TCP ports to which the attacker's machine has no access, using a remote FTP server as the confused deputy. Another example relates to personal firewall software. It can restrict Internet access for specific applications. Some applications circumvent this by starting a browser with instructions to access a specific URL. The browser has authority to open a network connection, even though the application does not. Firewall software can attempt to address this by prompting the user in cases where one program starts another which then accesses the network. However, the user frequently does not have sufficient information to determine whether such an access is legitimate—false positives are common, and there is a substantial risk that even sophisticated users will become habituated to clicking "OK" to these prompts. Not every program that misuses authority is a confused deputy. Sometimes misuse of authority is simply a result of a program error. The confused deputy problem occurs when the designation of an object is passed from one program to another, and the associated permission changes unintentionally, without any explicit action by either party. It is insidious because neither party did anything explicit to change the authority. Another example is when an administrator authorizes an AI agent to act on their behalf, and that AI subsequently delegates authority to another AI agent neither vetted nor authorized by the original administrator. The unvetted AI can then act without permissions or oversight from the original developer. == Solutions == In some systems it is possible to ask the operating system to open a file using the permissions of another client. This solution has some drawbacks: It requires explicit attention to security by the server. A naive or careless server might not take this extra step. It becomes more difficult to identify the correct permission if the server is in turn the client of another service and wants to pass along access to the file. It requires the client to trust the server to not abuse the borrowed permissions. Note that intersecting the server and client's permissions does not solve the problem either, because the server may then have to be given very wide permissions (all of the time, rather than those needed for a given request) in order to act for arbitrary clients. The simplest way to solve the confused deputy problem is to bundle together the designation of an object and the permission to access that object. This is exactly what a capability is. Using capability security in the compiler example, the client would pass to the server a capability to the output file, such as a file descriptor, rather than the name of the file. Since it lacks a capability to the billing file, it cannot designate that file for output. In the cross-site request forgery example, a URL supplied "cross"-site would include its own authority independent of that of the client of the web browser.
Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence
The Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence is a quarterly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Taylor and Francis. It covers all aspects of artificial intelligence and was established in 1989. The editor-in-chief is Eric Dietrich (Binghamton University), the deputy editors-in-chief are Li Pheng Khoo (School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University) and Antonio Lieto (Department of Computer Science, University of Turin). == Abstracting and indexing == The journal is abstracted and indexed in: According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2020/2021 impact factor of 2.340 .
Minion (solver)
Minion is a solver for satisfaction problems. Unlike constraint programming toolkits, which expect users to write programs in a traditional programming language like C++, Java or Prolog, Minion takes a text file which specifies the problem, and solves using only this. This makes using Minion much simpler, at the cost of much less customization. Minion has been shown to be faster than major commercial constraint solvers including CPLEX (formerly IBM ILOG). == Overview == Minion was introduced in 2006 by researchers at the University of St Andrews as a “fast, scalable” solver for large and hard CSP instances. The project provides a compact input language and a low-overhead C++ implementation aimed at throughput and memory efficiency. == Design and features == Minion implements a range of variable and constraint types commonly used in CSP modelling, plus search heuristics and optimisation support. The solver architecture prioritises cache-friendly data structures and specialised propagators. Notably, the developers adapted watched literal techniques from SAT solving to speed up constraint propagation for, among others, Boolean sums, the element global constraint, and table constraints. The modelling approach relies on a plain-text format (parsed by Minion) rather than embedding models into a host programming language. This reduces overhead and supports rapid “model-and-run” experimentation for large benchmark sets. == Performance == In the original evaluation on standard benchmarks, the authors reported that Minion often ran between one and two orders of magnitude faster than state-of-the-art toolkits of the time (including ILOG Solver and Gecode) on large, hard instances, with smaller gains—or slowdowns—on easier problems. Subsequent research has used Minion as a baseline solver in empirical studies and test generation tasks, reflecting its adoption within parts of the constraint programming community. == Applications == Minion has been applied in academic work on combinatorial search, scheduling and test generation, and is available to other environments via wrappers (for example, from the R language).
Parents & Kids Safe AI Coalition
The Parents & Kids Safe AI Coalition is a political action committee that advocates for regulation of artificial intelligence on child safety. As of April 2026, the group is funded solely by the artificial intelligence company OpenAI, which pledged $10 million to the effort. == History == In October 2025, California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 1064. Sponsored by Common Sense Media, the bill would have introduced stronger child safety protections for AI chatbots. The following month, Common Sense Media founder Jim Steyer filed a ballot initiative intended to restore the "guardrails" lost in the veto. In response, OpenAI introduced a competing initiative. In January 2026, Common Sense Media and OpenAI announced that they would be working together on a compromise ballot initiative, the Parents & Kids Safe AI Act. Reporting indicated that initial outreach emails to child safety organizations failed to disclose OpenAI's involvement. Several advocacy groups signed an open letter claiming the initiative would shield AI companies from liability and undermine age verification, among other concerns. After Common Sense Media met with opposing groups in February, the ballot initiative was put on hold and the organizations involved sought to negotiate with the Legislature instead. The Parents & Kids Safe AI Coalition was founded to support this effort. In March 2026, the group reached out to some of the same groups contacted earlier, asking them to endorse its list of policy priorities. Again, some organizations reported being unaware of OpenAI's level of involvement. At least two groups withdrew from the coalition after learning about the financial ties. The priorities themselves were described as "vague but fairly uncontroversial" by The San Francisco Standard.
Fuse Services Framework
Fuse Services Framework is an open source SOAP and REST web services platform based on Apache CXF for use in enterprise IT organizations. It is productized and supported by the Fuse group at FuseSource Corp. Fuse Services Framework service-enables new and existing systems for use in enterprise SOA infrastructure. Fuse Services Framework is a pluggable, small-footprint engine that creates high performance, secure and robust services in minutes using front-end programming APIs like JAX-WS and JAX-RS. It supports multiple transports and bindings and is extensible so developers can add bindings for additional message formats so all systems can work together without having to communicate through a centralized server. Fuse Services Framework is now a part of Red Hat JBoss Fuse. Fabric8 is a free Apache 2.0 Licensed upstream community for the JBoss Fuse product from Red Hat.
Leela Chess Zero
Leela Chess Zero (abbreviated as LCZero, lc0) is a free, open-source chess engine and volunteer computing project based on Google's AlphaZero engine. It was spearheaded by Gary Linscott, a developer for the Stockfish chess engine, and adapted from the Leela Zero Go engine. Like Leela Zero and AlphaGo Zero, early iterations of Leela Chess Zero started with no intrinsic chess-specific knowledge other than the basic rules of the game. It learned how to play chess through reinforcement learning from repeated self-play, using a distributed computing network coordinated at the Leela Chess Zero website. However, as of November 2024 most models used by the engine are trained through supervised learning on data generated by previous reinforcement learning runs. As of June 2025, Leela Chess Zero has played over 2.5 billion games against itself, playing around 1 million games every day, and is capable of play at a level that is comparable with Stockfish, the leading conventional chess program. == History == The Leela Chess Zero project was first announced on TalkChess.com on January 9, 2018, as an open-source, self-learning chess engine attempting to recreate the success of AlphaZero. Within the first few months of training, Leela Chess Zero had already reached the Grandmaster level, surpassing the strength of early releases of Rybka, Stockfish, and Komodo, despite evaluating orders of magnitude fewer positions due to the size of the deep neural network it uses as its evaluation function. In December 2018, the AlphaZero team published a paper in Science magazine revealing previously undisclosed details of the architecture and training parameters used for AlphaZero. These changes were soon incorporated into Leela Chess Zero and increased both its strength and training efficiency. Work on Leela Chess Zero has informed the AobaZero project for shogi. The engine has been rewritten and carefully iterated upon since its inception, and since 2019 has run on multiple backends, allowing it to run on both CPU and GPU. The engine can be configured to use different weights, including even different architectures. This same mechanism of substitutable weights can also be used for alternative chess rules, such as for the Fischer Random Chess variant, which was done in 2019. == Neural network == Like AlphaZero, Leela Chess Zero employs neural networks which output both a policy vector, a distribution over subsequent moves used to guide search, and a position evaluation. These neural networks are designed to run on GPU, unlike traditional engines. It originally used residual neural networks, but in 2022 switched to using a transformer-based architecture designed by Daniel Monroe and Philip Chalmers. These models represent a chessboard as a sequence of 64 tokens and apply a trunk consisting of a stack of Post-LN encoder layers, outputting a sequence of 64 encoded tokens which is used to generate a position evaluation and a distribution over subsequent moves. They use a custom domain-specific position encoding called smolgen to improve the self-attention layer. As of November 2024, the models used by the engine are significantly larger and more efficient than the residual network used by AlphaZero, reportedly achieving grandmaster-level strength at one position evaluation per move. These models are able to detect and exploit positional features like trapped pieces and fortresses to outmaneuver traditional engines, giving Leela a unique playstyle. There is also evidence that they are able to perform look-ahead. == Program and use == Like AlphaZero, Leela Chess Zero learns through reinforcement learning, continually training on data generated through self-play. However, unlike AlphaZero, Leela Chess Zero decentralizes its data generation through distributed computing, with volunteers generating self-play data on local hardware which is fed to the reinforcement algorithm. In order to contribute training games, volunteers must download the latest non-release candidate (non-rc) version of the engine and the client. The client connects to the Leela Chess Zero server and iteratively receives the latest neural network version and produces self-play games which are sent back to the server and use to train the network. In order to run the Leela Chess Zero engine, two components are needed: the engine binary used to perform search, and a network used to evaluate positions. The client, which is used to contribute training data to the project, is not needed for this purpose. Older networks can also be downloaded and used by placing those networks in the folder with the Lc0 binary. == Spinoffs == In season 15 of the Top Chess Engine Championship, the engine AllieStein competed alongside Leela. AllieStein is a combination of two different spinoffs from Leela: Allie, which uses the same neural network as Leela, but has a unique search algorithm for exploring different lines of play, and Stein, a network which was trained using supervised learning on existing game data from games between other engines. While neither of these projects were admitted to TCEC separately due to their similarity to Leela, the combination of Allie's search algorithm with the Stein network, called AllieStein, was deemed unique enough to warrant its inclusion in the competition. In early 2021, the LcZero blog announced Ceres, a transliteration of the engine to C# which introduced several algorithmic improvements. The engine has performed competitively in tournaments, achieving third place in the TCEC Swiss 7 and fourth place in the TCEC Cup 14. In 2024, the CeresTrain framework was announced to support training deep neural networks for chess in PyTorch. == Competition results == In April 2018, Leela Chess Zero became the first engine using a deep neural network to enter the Top Chess Engine Championship (TCEC), during Season 12 in the lowest division, Division 4. Out of 28 games, it won one, drew two, and lost the remainder; its sole victory came from a position in which its opponent, Scorpio 2.82, crashed in three moves. However, it improved quickly. In July 2018, Leela placed seventh out of eight competitors at the 2018 World Computer Chess Championship. In August 2018, it won division 4 of TCEC season 13 with a record of 14 wins, 12 draws, and 2 losses. In Division 3, Leela scored 16/28 points, finishing third behind Ethereal, which scored 22.5/28 points, and Arasan on tiebreak. By September 2018, Leela had become competitive with the strongest engines in the world. In the 2018 Chess.com Computer Chess Championship (CCCC), Leela placed fifth out of 24 entrants. The top eight engines advanced to round 2, where Leela placed fourth. Leela then won the 30-game match against Komodo to secure third place in the tournament. Leela participated in the "TCEC Cup", an event in which engines from different TCEC divisions can play matches against one another. Leela defeated higher-division engines Laser, Ethereal and Fire before finally being eliminated by Stockfish in the semi-finals. In December 2018, Leela participated in Season 14 of the Top Chess Engine Championship. Leela dominated divisions 3, 2, and 1, easily finishing first in all of them. In the premier division, Stockfish dominated while Houdini, Komodo and Leela competed for second place. It came down to a final-round game where Leela needed to hold Stockfish to a draw with black to finish second ahead of Komodo. Leela managed this and therefore met Stockfish in the superfinal. In a back and forth match, first Stockfish and then Leela took three game leads before Stockfish won by the narrow margin of 50.5–49.5. In February 2019, Leela scored its first major tournament win when it defeated Houdini in the final of the second TCEC cup. Leela did not lose a game the entire tournament. In April 2019, Leela won the Chess.com Computer Chess Championship 7: Blitz Bonanza, becoming the first neural-network project to take the title. In the season 15 of the Top Chess Engine Championship (May 2019), Leela defended its TCEC Cup title, this time defeating Stockfish with a score of 5.5–4.5 (+2 =7 −1) in the final after Stockfish blundered a seven-man tablebase draw. Leela also won the Superfinal for the first time, scoring 53.5–46.5 (+14 −7 =79) versus Stockfish, including winning as both white and black in the same predetermined opening in games 61 and 62. Season 16 of TCEC saw Leela finish in third place in premier division, missing qualification for the Superfinal to Stockfish and the new deep neural network engine AllieStein. Leela was the only engine not to suffer any losses in the Premier division, and defeated Stockfish in one of the six games they played. However, Leela only managed to score nine wins, while AllieStein and Stockfish both scored 14 wins. This inability to defeat weaker engines led to Leela finishing third, half a point behind AllieStein and a point behind Stockfish. In the fourth TCEC Cup, Leela was seeded first as the defending champion,