Information retrieval (IR) in computing and information science is the task of identifying and retrieving information system resources that are relevant to an information need. The information need can be specified in the form of a search query. In the case of document retrieval, queries can be based on full-text or other content-based indexing. Information retrieval is the science of searching for information in a document, searching for documents themselves, and also searching for the metadata that describes data, and for databases of texts, images, or sounds. Cross-modal retrieval implies retrieval across modalities. Automated information retrieval systems are used to reduce what has been called information overload. An IR system is a software system that provides access to books, journals, and other documents, as well as storing and managing those documents. Web search engines are the most visible IR applications. == Overview == An information retrieval process begins when a user enters a query into the system. Queries are formal statements of information needs, for example search strings in web search engines. In information retrieval, a query does not uniquely identify a single object in the collection. Instead, several objects may match the query, perhaps with different degrees of relevance. An object is an entity that is represented by information in a content collection or database. User queries are matched against the database information. However, as opposed to classical SQL queries of a database, in information retrieval the results returned may or may not match the query, so results are typically ranked. This ranking of results is a key difference of information retrieval searching compared to database searching. Depending on the application the data objects may be, for example, text documents, images, audio, mind maps or videos. Often the documents themselves are not kept or stored directly in the IR system, but are instead represented in the system by document surrogates or metadata. Most IR systems compute a numeric score on how well each object in the database matches the query, and rank the objects according to this value. The top ranking objects are then shown to the user. The process may then be iterated if the user wishes to refine the query. == History == there is ... a machine called the Univac ... whereby letters and figures are coded as a pattern of magnetic spots on a long steel tape. By this means the text of a document, preceded by its subject code symbol, can be recorded ... the machine ... automatically selects and types out those references which have been coded in any desired way at a rate of 120 words a minute The idea of using computers to search for relevant pieces of information was popularized in the article As We May Think by Vannevar Bush in 1945. It would appear that Bush was inspired by patents for a 'statistical machine' – filed by Emanuel Goldberg in the 1920s and 1930s – that searched for documents stored on film. The first description of a computer searching for information was described by Holmstrom in 1948, detailing an early mention of the Univac computer. Automated information retrieval systems were introduced in the 1950s: one even featured in the 1957 romantic comedy Desk Set. In the 1960s, the first large information retrieval research group was formed by Gerard Salton at Cornell. By the 1970s several different retrieval techniques had been shown to perform well on small text corpora such as the Cranfield collection (several thousand documents). Large-scale retrieval systems, such as the Lockheed Dialog system, came into use early in the 1970s. In 1992, the US Department of Defense along with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), cosponsored the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) as part of the TIPSTER text program. The aim of this was to look into the information retrieval community by supplying the infrastructure that was needed for evaluation of text retrieval methodologies on a very large text collection. This catalyzed research on methods that scale to huge corpora. The introduction of web search engines has boosted the need for very large scale retrieval systems even further. By the late 1990s, the rise of the World Wide Web fundamentally transformed information retrieval. While early search engines such as AltaVista (1995) and Yahoo! (1994) offered keyword-based retrieval, they were limited in scale and ranking refinement. The breakthrough came in 1998 with the founding of Google, which introduced the PageRank algorithm, using the web's hyperlink structure to assess page importance and improve relevance ranking. During the 2000s, web search systems evolved rapidly with the integration of machine learning techniques. These systems began to incorporate user behavior data (e.g., click-through logs), query reformulation, and content-based signals to improve search accuracy and personalization. In 2009, Microsoft launched Bing, introducing features that would later incorporate semantic web technologies through the development of its Satori knowledge base. Academic analysis have highlighted Bing's semantic capabilities, including structured data use and entity recognition, as part of a broader industry shift toward improving search relevance and understanding user intent through natural language processing. A major leap occurred in 2018, when Google deployed BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) to better understand the contextual meaning of queries and documents. This marked one of the first times deep neural language models were used at scale in real-world retrieval systems. BERT's bidirectional training enabled a more refined comprehension of word relationships in context, improving the handling of natural language queries. Because of its success, transformer-based models gained traction in academic research and commercial search applications. Simultaneously, the research community began exploring neural ranking models that outperformed traditional lexical-based methods. Long-standing benchmarks such as the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), initiated in 1992, and more recent evaluation frameworks Microsoft MARCO(MAchine Reading COmprehension) (2019) became central to training and evaluating retrieval systems across multiple tasks and domains. MS MARCO has also been adopted in the TREC Deep Learning Tracks, where it serves as a core dataset for evaluating advances in neural ranking models within a standardized benchmarking environment. As deep learning became integral to information retrieval systems, researchers began to categorize neural approaches into three broad classes: sparse, dense, and hybrid models. Sparse models, including traditional term-based methods and learned variants like SPLADE, rely on interpretable representations and inverted indexes to enable efficient exact term matching with added semantic signals. Dense models, such as dual-encoder architectures like ColBERT, use continuous vector embeddings to support semantic similarity beyond keyword overlap. Hybrid models aim to combine the advantages of both, balancing the lexical (token) precision of sparse methods with the semantic depth of dense models. This way of categorizing models balances scalability, relevance, and efficiency in retrieval systems. As IR systems increasingly rely on deep learning, concerns around bias, fairness, and explainability have also come to the picture. Research is now focused not just on relevance and efficiency, but on transparency, accountability, and user trust in retrieval algorithms. == Applications == Areas where information retrieval techniques are employed include (the entries are in alphabetical order within each category): === General applications === Digital libraries Information filtering Recommender systems Media search Blog search Image retrieval 3D retrieval Music retrieval News search Speech retrieval Video retrieval Search engines Site search Desktop search Enterprise search Federated search Mobile search Social search Web search === Domain-specific applications === Expert search finding Genomic information retrieval Geographic information retrieval Information retrieval for chemical structures Information retrieval in software engineering Legal information retrieval Vertical search === Other retrieval methods === Methods/Techniques in which information retrieval techniques are employed include: Cross-modal retrieval Adversarial information retrieval Automatic summarization Multi-document summarization Compound term processing Cross-lingual retrieval Document classification Spam filtering Question answering == Model types == In order to effectively retrieve relevant documents by IR strategies, the documents are typically transformed into a suitable representation. Each retrieval strategy incorporates a specific model for its document representation purposes. The picture on the right illustrates the relationship of som
CloudPassage
CloudPassage is a company that provides an automation platform, delivered via software as a service, that improves security for private, public, and hybrid cloud computing environments. CloudPassage is headquartered in San Francisco. == History == CloudPassage was founded by Carson Sweet, Talli Somekh, and Vitaliy Geraymovych in 2010. The company used cloud computing and big data analytics to implement security monitoring and control in a platform called Halo. CloudPassage spent a year in stealth developing the Halo technology, coming out of stealth mode to a closed beta in January 2011. In June 2012, the company launched the commercial product that included configuration security monitoring, network microsegmentation, and two-factor authentication for privileged access management. By 2013, CloudPassage expanded Halo to support large enterprises with advanced security and compliance requirements with a product called Halo Enterprise. The first round of venture funding for the company raised $6.5 million. In April 2012, CloudPassage raised $14 million. The financing round was led by Tenaya Capital. In February 2014, CloudPassage announced that it had raised $25.5 million in funding led by Shasta Ventures. In total, the company has invested over $30 million in its technology and raised approximately $88 million in capital. == Product == The CloudPassage platform provides cloud workload security and compliance for systems hosted in public or private cloud infrastructure environments, including hybrid cloud and multi-cloud workload hosting models. The flagship product the company offers is called Halo. Halo secures virtual servers in public, private, and hybrid cloud infrastructures and provides file integrity monitoring (FIM) while also administering firewall automation, vulnerability monitoring, network access control, security event alerting, and assessment. The Halo platform also provides security applications such as privileged access management, software vulnerability scanning, multifactor authentication, and log-based IDS. In December 2013, CloudPassage set up six servers with Microsoft Windows and Linux operating systems and combinations of popular programs and invited hackers to attempt to hack into the servers. The top prize was $5,000 and the winning hacker was a novice that completed the task in four hours. CloudPassage programmed the servers to use basic default security settings to show how vulnerable cloud computing programs can be to security threats. == Awards and recognition == In May 2011, Gigaom named CloudPassage in its list of the Top 50 Cloud Innovators. That same month, eWeek recognized CloudPassage as one of 16 Hot Startup Companies Flying Under the Radar. SC Magazine named CloudPassage an Industry Innovator in the Virtualization and Cloud Security category in 2012. Also in 2012, The Wall Street Journal named CloudPassage a runner-up in the Information Security category of its Technology Innovation Awards. The CloudPassage large-scale security program, Halo, won Best Security Solution in 2014 at the SIIA Codie awards.
Optical recording
The history of optical recording can be divided into a few number of distinct major contributions. The pioneers of optical recording worked mostly independently, and their solutions to the many technical challenges have very distinctive features, such as reflective disc (Compaan and Kramer) transparent disc (Gregg) floppy disc (Russell) rigid disc (Compaan and Kramer) focused laser beam for read-out through transparent substrate (Compaan and Kramer). == Gregg 1958 == Laserdisc technology, using a transparent disc, was invented by David Paul Gregg in 1958 (and patented in 1970 and 1990). By 1969 Philips had developed a videodisc in reflective mode, which has great advantages over the transparent mode. MCA and Philips decided to join their efforts. They first publicly demonstrated the videodisc in 1972. Laserdisc was first available on the market, in Atlanta, on December 15, 1978, two years after the VHS VCR and four years before the CD, which is based on Laserdisc technology. Philips produced the players and MCA produced the discs. The Philips/MCA cooperation was not successful, and discontinued after a few years. Several of the scientists responsible for the early research (John Winslow, Richard Wilkinson and Ray Dakin) founded Optical Disc Corporation (now ODC Nimbus). == Russell 1965 == While working at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, James Russell invented an optical storage system for digital audio and video, patenting the concept in 1970. The earliest patents by Russell, US 3,501,586, and 3,795,902 were filed in 1966, and 1969. respectively. He built prototypes, and the first was operating in 1973. Russell had found a way to record digital information onto a photosensitive plate in tiny dark spots, each spot one micrometre from centre to centre, with a laser that wrote the binary patterns. Russell's first optical disc was distinctly different from the eventual compact disc product: the disc in the player was not read by laser light. A key characteristic of Russell's invention is that a laser is not used for the reading the disc, instead the entire disc or oblong sheet to be read is illuminated by a large playback light source at the back of the transparent foil. As a result, the information density is relatively low. By 1985, Russell held over 25 patents to various technologies related to optical recording and playback. Russell's intellectual property was purchased by Optical Recording Corporation (ORC) in Toronto in 1985, and this firm notified a number of CD manufacturers that their CD technology was based on patents held by ORC. In 1987, ORC signed an agreement with Sony whereby Sony paid for licensing of the technology. Further licenses followed from Philips and others. Warner Communications did not sign, and was sued by ORC. In 1992, the large CD manufacturer, now called Time Warner, was ordered to pay ORC US$30 million in patent violations. In the 1970 patent, the spot diameter was around 10 micrometres. Thus, the areal information density was around a factor hundred less than that of the CD as later developed. Russell continued to refine the concept throughout the 1970s. Philips and Sony, however, were able to put far greater resources into the parallel development of the concept, arriving at a smaller and more sophisticated product in just a few years. Russell's various partners and ventures failed to produce a single consumer product. == Korpel 1968 == Adrianus Korpel worked for the Zenith Electronics Corporation, when he developed very early optical videodisc systems, including holographic storage. == Kramer and Compaan 1969 == The Philips development of the videodisc technology began in 1969 with efforts by Dutch physicists Klaas Compaan and Piet Kramer to record video images in holographic form on disc. Their prototype Laserdisc shown in 1972 used a laser beam in reflective mode to read a track of pits using an FM video signal. Together with MCA, Philips brought the optical videodisk to market in 1978. The cooperation between Philips and MCA did not last long, and discontinued after a few years. == Immink and Doi 1979 == The Compact Disc (CD), which is based on MCA/Philips Laserdisc technology, was developed by a taskforce of Sony and Philips in 1979–1980. Toshi Doi and Kees Schouhamer Immink created the digital technologies that turned the analog Laserdisc into a high-density low-cost digital audio disc. The CD, available on the market since October 1982, remains the standard physical medium for sale of commercial audio recordings Standard CDs have a diameter of 120 mm and can hold up to 80 minutes of audio (700 MB of data). The Mini CD has various diameters ranging from 60 to 80 mm; they are sometimes used for CD singles or device drivers, storing up to 24 minutes of audio. The technology was later adapted and expanded to include data storage CD-ROM, write-once audio and data storage CD-R, rewritable media CD-RW, Super Audio CD (SACD), Video Compact Discs (VCD), Super Video Compact Discs (SVCD), PhotoCD, PictureCD, CD-i, and Enhanced CD. CD-ROMs and CD-Rs remain widely used technologies in the computer industry. The CD and its extensions have been extremely successful: in 2004, worldwide sales of CD audio, CD-ROM, and CD-R reached about 30 billion discs. By 2007, 200 billion CDs had been sold worldwide.
AMiner (database)
AMiner (formerly ArnetMiner) is a free online service used to index, search, and mine big scientific data. == Overview == AMiner (ArnetMiner) is designed to search and perform data mining operations against academic publications on the Internet, using social network analysis to identify connections between researchers, conferences, and publications. This allows it to provide services such as expert finding, geographic search, trend analysis, reviewer recommendation, association search, course search, academic performance evaluation, and topic modeling. AMiner was created as a research project in social influence analysis, social network ranking, and social network extraction. A number of peer-reviewed papers have been published arising from the development of the system. It has been in operation for more than three years, and has indexed 130,000,000 researchers and more than 265 million publications. The research was funded by the Chinese National High-tech R&D Program and the National Science Foundation of China. AMiner is commonly used in academia to identify relationships between and draw statistical correlations about research and researchers. It has attracted more than 10 million independent IP accesses from 220 countries and regions. The product has been used in Elsevier's SciVerse platform, and academic conferences such as SIGKDD, ICDM, PKDD, WSDM. == Operation == AMiner automatically extracts the researcher profile from the web. It collects and identifies the relevant pages, then uses a unified approach to extract data from the identified documents. It also extracts publications from online digital libraries using heuristic rules. It integrates the extracted researchers’ profiles and the extracted publications. It employs the researcher name as the identifier. A probabilistic framework has been proposed to deal with the name ambiguity problem in the integration. The integrated data is stored into a researcher network knowledge base (RNKB). The principal other product in the area are Google Scholar, Elsevier's Scirus, and the open source project CiteSeer. == History == It was initiated and created by professor Jie Tang from Tsinghua University, China. It was first launched in March 2006. The following provide a list of updates in the past years: March 2006, Version 0.1, Functions include researcher profiling, expert search, conference search, and publication search. The system was developed in Perl; August 2006, Version 1.0, The system was re-implemented in Java; July 2007, Version 2.0, New functions include researcher interest mining, association search, survey paper finding (unavailable now); April 2008, Version 3.0, New functions include query understanding, new GUI, and search log analysis; November 2008, Version 4.0, New functions include graph search, topic modeling, NSF/NSFC funding information extraction; April 2009, Version 5.0, New functions include Profile edition, open API service, Bole search, course search (unavailable now); December 2009, Version 6.0, New functions include academic performance evaluation, user feedback, conference analysis; May 2010, Version 7.0, New functions include name disambiguation, paper-reviewer recommendation, ArnetPage creation; March 2012, Version II, renamed as AMiner, rewrote all the codes and redesign the GUI. New functions include: geographic search, ArnetAPP platform. June 2014, Version II, renamed as AMiner, rewrote all the codes and redesign the GUI. New functions include: geographic search, ArnetAPP platform. December 2015, a completely new version got online. May 2017, professional version got online. April 2018, New functions include Trend Analysis, a deep learning based Name Disambiguation == Resources == AMiner published several datasets for academic research purpose, including Open Academic Graph, DBLP+citation (a data set augmenting citations into the DBLP data from Digital Bibliography & Library Project), Name Disambiguation, Social Tie Analysis. For more available datasets and source codes for research, please refer to.
Open Sound Control
Open Sound Control (OSC) is a protocol for networking sound synthesizers, computers, and other multimedia devices for purposes such as musical performance or show control. OSC's advantages include interoperability, accuracy, flexibility and enhanced organization and documentation. Its disadvantages include higher bandwidth requirements, increased load on embedded processors, and lack of standardized messages/interoperability. The first specification was released in March 2002. == Motivation == OSC is a content format developed at CNMAT by Adrian Freed and Matt Wright comparable to XML, WDDX, or JSON. It was originally intended for sharing music performance data (gestures, parameters and note sequences) between musical instruments (especially electronic musical instruments such as synthesizers), computers, and other multimedia devices. OSC is sometimes used as an alternative to the 1983 MIDI standard, when higher resolution and a richer parameter space is desired. OSC messages are transported across the internet and within local subnets using UDP/IP and Ethernet. OSC messages between gestural controllers are usually transmitted over serial endpoints of USB wrapped in the SLIP protocol. == Features == OSC's main features, compared to MIDI, include: Open-ended, dynamic, URI-style symbolic naming scheme Symbolic and high-resolution numeric data Pattern matching language to specify multiple recipients of a single message High resolution time tags "Bundles" of messages whose effects must occur simultaneously == Applications == There are dozens of OSC applications, including real-time sound and media processing environments, web interactivity tools, software synthesizers, programming languages and hardware devices. OSC has achieved wide use in fields including musical expression, robotics, video performance interfaces, distributed music systems and inter-process communication. The TUIO community standard for tangible interfaces such as multitouch is built on top of OSC. Similarly the GDIF system for representing gestures integrates OSC. OSC is used extensively in experimental musical controllers, and has been built into several open source and commercial products. The Open Sound World (OSW) music programming language is designed around OSC messaging. OSC is the heart of the DSSI plugin API, an evolution of the LADSPA API, in order to make the eventual GUI interact with the core of the plugin via messaging the plugin host. LADSPA and DSSI are APIs dedicated to audio effects and synthesizers. In 2007, a standardized namespace within OSC called SYN, for communication between controllers, synthesizers and hosts, was proposed. == Design == OSC messages consist of an address pattern (such as /oscillator/4/frequency), a type tag string (such as ,fi for a float32 argument followed by an int32 argument), and the arguments themselves (which may include a time tag). Address patterns form a hierarchical name space, reminiscent of a Unix filesystem path, or a URL, and refer to "Methods" inside the server, which are invoked with the attached arguments. Type tag strings are a compact string representation of the argument types. Arguments are represented in binary form with four-byte alignment. The core types supported are 32-bit two's complement signed integers 32-bit IEEE floating point numbers Null-terminated arrays of eight-bit encoded data (C-style strings) arbitrary sized blob (e.g. audio data, or a video frame) An example message is included in the spec (with null padding bytes represented by ␀): /oscillator/4/frequency␀,f␀␀, Followed by the 4-byte float32 representation of 440.0: 0x43dc0000. Messages may be combined into bundles, which themselves may be combined into bundles, etc. Each bundle contains a timestamp, which determines whether the server should respond immediately or at some point in the future. Applications commonly employ extensions to this core set. More recently some of these extensions such as a compact Boolean type were integrated into the required core types of OSC 1.1. The advantages of OSC over MIDI are primarily internet connectivity; data type resolution; and the comparative ease of specifying a symbolic path, as opposed to specifying all connections as seven-bit numbers with seven-bit or fourteen-bit data types. This human-readability has the disadvantage of being inefficient to transmit and more difficult to parse by embedded firmware, however. The spec does not define any particular OSC Methods or OSC Containers. All messages are implementation-defined and vary from server to server.
AlphaChip (controversy)
The AlphaChip controversy refers to a series of public, scholarly, and legal disputes surrounding a 2021 Nature paper by Google-affiliated researchers. The paper describes an approach to macro placement, a stage of chip floorplanning, based on reinforcement learning (RL), a machine learning method in which a system iteratively improves its decisions by optimizing performance-based reward signals. The primary technical question is whether the new techniques are better than existing (non-AI) techniques. Both internal Google studies and external attempts to replicate the algorithm have failed to show the claimed benefits. No head-to-head comparison is available because the data used in the paper is proprietary, and Google has not released any results from running its algorithm on public benchmarks. This has resulted in considerable skepticism over the paper's claims. In addition, the inability of others (both inside and outside of Google) to replicate the claimed results have sparked concerns about the paper’s methodology, reproducibility, and scientific integrity. The lead researchers of the Nature paper were affiliated with Google Brain, which became part of Google DeepMind, and later spun off into the company Ricursive. == Motivation for research: Macro placement in chip layout == Chip design for modern integrated circuits is a complex, expert-driven process that relies on electronic design automation. It determines the performance of the final chip, and takes weeks or months to complete. Advances that produce better designs, or complete the process faster, are commercially and academically significant. Macro placement is a step during chip design that determines the locations of large circuit components (macros) within a chip. It is followed by detailed placement, which places the far more numerous but much smaller standard cells. Alternatively, mixed-size placement simultaneously places both large macros and millions of small cells, requiring algorithms to handle objects that differ by several orders of magnitude in area and mobility. The number of macros per circuit typically ranges from several to thousands. Wiring must be performed after placement, and the details of this wiring strongly influence the power, performance, and area (PPA) of the completed chip. The full wiring calculation is very resource intensive, so placement tools typically use a proxy cost, a simplified objective function used to guide the placement algorithm during training and evaluation. The faithfulness of the chosen proxy cost to the final objective cost is a critical aspect of placer performance. === State of the art as of 2021 === Chips have been designed since the 1960s, so there were many existing methods as of 2021. Available options included manual design, academic tools, and commercial offerings. Academic methods include combinatorial optimization techniques such as simulated annealing, analytical placement, hierarchical heuristics, and as of 2019 reinforcement learning and broader machine learning techniques.. Existing (non-AI) academic tools for solving the same problem include APlace, NTUplace3, ePlace, RePlace, and DREAMPlace. Commercial EDA vendors also offered automated software tools for floorplanning and mixed-size placement. For instance, as of 2019 Cadence’s Innovus implementation software offered a Concurrent Macro Placer (CMP) feature to automatically place large blocks and standard cells. == The 2021 Nature paper and its claims == In 2021, Nature published a paper under the title “A graph‑placement methodology for fast chip design” co‑authored by 21 Google-affiliated researchers. The paper reported that an RL agent could generate macro placements for integrated circuits "in under six hours" and achieve improvements over human-designed layouts in power, timing performance, and area (PPA), standard chip-quality metrics referring respectively to energy consumption, chip operating speed, and silicon footprint (evaluated after wire routing). It introduced a sequential macro placement algorithm in which macros are placed one at a time instead of optimizing their locations concurrently. At each step, the algorithm selects a location for a single macro on a discretized chip canvas, conditioning its decision on the placements of previously placed macros. This sequential formulation converts macro placement into a long-horizon decision process in which early placement choices constrain later ones. After macro placement, force-directed placement is applied to place standard cells connected to the macros. Deep reinforcement learning is used to train a policy network to place macros by maximizing a reward that reflects final placement quality (for example, wirelength and congestion). Policy learning occurs during self‑play for one or multiple circuit designs. Further placement optimizations refine the overall layout by balancing wirelength, density, and overlap constraints, while treating the macro locations produced by the RL policy as fixed obstacles. The approach relies on pre-training, in which the RL model is first trained on a corpus of prior designs (twenty in the Nature paper) to learn general placement patterns before being fine-tuned on a specific chip. Circuit examples used in the study were parts of proprietary Google TPU designs, called blocks (or floorplan partitions). The paper reported results on five blocks and described the approach as generalizable across chip designs. == Controversy == Soon after the paper's publication, controversy arose over whether the claims were true, whether they were sufficiently proven, and whether academic standards were followed. These controversies arose both within Google and among external academic experts. === Internal dispute at Google and legal proceedings === In 2022, Satrajit Chatterjee, a Google engineer involved in reviewing the AlphaChip work, raised concerns internally and drafted an alternative analysis, (Stronger Baselines) arguing that established methods outperformed the RL approach under fair comparison. In March 2022, Google declined to publish this analysis and terminated Chatterjee's employment. Chatterjee filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, alleging that representations related to the AlphaChip research involved fraud and scientific misconduct. According to court documents, Chatterjee's study was conducted "in the context of a large potential Google Cloud deal". He noted that it "would have been unethical to imply that we had revolutionary technology when our tests showed otherwise" and claimed Google was deliberately withholding material information. Furthermore, the committee that reviewed his paper and disapproved its publication was allegedly chaired by subordinates of Jeff Dean, a senior co-author of the Nature paper. Google’s subsequent motion to dismiss was denied, holding that Chatterjee had plausibly alleged retaliation for refusing to engage in conduct he believed would violate state or federal law. === External controversy === The external questions can be summarized in four main points: (a) Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? (b) Did the paper provide enough information to allow the results to be independently reproduced and verified? If so, are the results an improvement over existing academic and commercial tools? (c) Were the comparisons in the paper done fairly and with full disclosure? (d) Were academic standards followed? Each of these is discussed below. ==== Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? ==== The Nature paper described the reduction in design-process time as going from "days or weeks" to "hours", but did not provide per-design time breakdowns or specify the number of engineers, their level of expertise, or the baseline tools and workflow against which this comparison was made. It was also unclear whether the "days or weeks" baseline included time spent on other tasks such as functional design changes. The paper also evaluated the method on fewer benchmarks (five) than is common in the field, and showed mixed results across different evaluation goals While the approach was described as improving circuit area, this claim seems unsupported, as the RL optimization did not alter the overall circuit area, as it adjusted only the locations of fixed-shape non-overlapping circuit components within a fixed rectangular layout boundary. ==== Comparison with existing methods, and replicating the algorithm ==== Because macro placement is largely geometric and its fundamental algorithms are not tied to a specific process node, competing approaches can be evaluated on public benchmarks (tests) across technologies, rather than primarily on proprietary internal designs. This is standard procedure when comparing academic placers, see . In contrast, Google has only reported results only on internal proprietary designs, and as of 2026 has not offered comparisons with prior methods on common benchmarks. Researchers at the University of Califor
Social media age verification laws in the United States
In the United States, age verification laws for social media are ostensibly designed to limit young people's access to content deemed problematic such as pornography and to reduce the negative impact of social media on the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents. The purpose and effects of such laws are highly contested. Critics say that these laws suppress free speech by removing online anonymity. They have also stated the laws undermine safety, even for children, by increasing the exposure of user data to breaches, many sites require government IDs and biometric data (such as photographs), often transmitted or secured insecurely and without encryption. They also note that the measures are easily circumvented with VPNs, prompting some states such as Michigan and Wisconsin to propose legislation banning VPNs. == Laws == Many state legislatures have considered or enacted legislation pertaining to young people and social media. In 2022, California passed the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AB 2273) requiring websites that are likely to be used by minors to estimate visitors' ages. On March 23, 2023, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed SB 152 and HB 311, collectively known as the Utah Social Media Regulation Act, which requires age verification; if a user is under 18, they have to get parental consent before making an account on any social media platform. Few laws have gone into effect partially due to court challenges. === Arkansas === On April 11, 2023, Arkansas enacted SB 396, the Social Media Safety Act. The law requires certain social media companies that make over $100 million per year to verify the age of new users using a third party, and to obtain parental consent for users under 18. It excludes social media companies that allow a user to generate short video clips as well as games. The law was set to go in effect in September 2023. On June 29, 2023, NetChoice sued the Attorney General of Arkansas Tim Griffin in The Western District Court of Arkansas to block enforcement of the law, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). On July 7, 2023, NetChoice filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law. On July 27, Griffin and Tony Allen filed briefs in opposition to the preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction was granted by Judge Timothy L. Brooks on August 31, reasoning that the law was too vague, that NetChoice's members will suffer irreparable harm if the act goes into effect, and that age restrictions were ineffective. === California === ==== Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043) ==== On October 13, 2025, Gavin Newsom signed the Digital Age Assurance Act into law, which requires operating system providers to estimate the age of a user and into 4 age categories: Under 13 13 - 15 16 - 17 18 and over It comes into force on January 1, 2027. ==== California Age-Appropriate Design Code (AB 2273) ==== On September 15, 2022, California enacted AB 2273, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. Its most controversial provisions required online services that are likely to be used by those under 18 to estimate the age of child users with a "reasonable level of certainty". It also required these services to file Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) certifying whether an online product, service, or feature could harm children, including by exposing them to (potentially) harmful content. The law does not define harmful content. Before the law took effect, EFF sent a veto request to Newsom. On December 14, 2022, NetChoice sued. On September 18, 2023, Federal Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted a preliminary injunction. The 9th Circuit on August 16, 2024, affirmed the injunction against the DPIA section of the law and sent the rest back, because the argument in the 9th circuit was mainly focused on the DPIA. ==== Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976) ==== On September 20, 2024, California enacted SB 976, Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction. The law requires online platforms to exclude those under 18 from "addictive" feeds unless parental consent is given. It requires online platforms to not send notifications to someone under 18 between 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM without parental consent or between 8:00 am – 3:00 pm without parental consent from September through May (the law does not define what a "notification" is). The law took effect on January 1, 2025, with age verification required as of December 31, 2026. On November 12, NetChoice sued in the Northern District and before Judge Edward John Davila. On December 31, the judge blocked the sections of SB 976 that required time-of-day restrictions. He also enjoined requirements to report on the number of minor users as well as the number of parental assents to access an addictive feed. He did not block the age assurance requirement or blocking minors from seeing addictive feeds without parental consent. His reasoning was that age assurance that runs in the background does not restrict adult access to speech and that regulating feeds does not violate the first amendment because it was content neutral and did not remove any content. On January 1, 2025, NetChoice filed a motion to fully block the law as part of its appeal to the Ninth Circuit. NetChoice claimed that the court erred in its reading of Supreme Court case Moody v. NetChoice by mainly focusing on the concurring opinions and not the deciding opinion. The same day Davila decreed that California's response to NetChoice was due by 11:59 pm. California responded the same day to NetChoice's motion, claiming that the court should not block the full law, claiming that NetChoice had misread Moody v. NetChoice and that NetChoice's members would not likely face any harm from the act because members such as X (formerly Twitter) already offer their members feeds that were not personalized. On January 2, Davila granted NetChoice's motion to block the full law during the appeals process by delaying the effective date of the law from January 1, 2025, to February 1, 2025. That day NetChoice appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. === Florida === On January 5, 2024, Tyler Sirois introduced HB 1, which would ban anyone under 16 from using any social media platform and would require platforms to verify the age of users. After the bill passed, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a blog post opposing the bill for violating the rights of minors and adults. The bill was vetoed by Governor Ron DeSantis on March 1, 2024, claiming that the State Legislature was going to enact a better alternative. HB 3 then decreased the minimum age from 16 to 14, allowing minors aged 14 and 15 to make social media accounts with parental consent. Florida enacted it on March 25, 2024, and took effect on January 1, 2025. A surge of 1,150% in VPN demand in Florida was detected after the law took effect. VPN services provide the ability to circumvent the law. On October 28, 2024, NetChoice and Computer and Communications Industry Association sued. The Judge is Chief Judge Mark E. Walker. On February 28, 2025, arguments were heard on the motion for a preliminary injunction. Walker seemed skeptical of Florida's argument that the law did not violate the first amendment and said the State would have a hard time to justify a complete ban of youth under 14 from social media. On March 13, Walker denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs had not proven that at least one of their members had at least 10 percent of their users under 16 use their platform for at least 2 hours per day. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction which was granted on June 3, for failing First Amendment Intermediate scrutiny. The injunction left in force the provision that allowed parents to request termination of their child's social media account. === Georgia === On April 23, 2024, Georgia enacted SB 351, which became Act 463. Act 463 requires platforms to verify the age of users of social media platforms and require users under 16 years of age to have parental consent before creating an account. It also requires schools to ban all social media platforms, including YouTube. Before the law was signed NetChoice sent a veto request to Kemp claiming the law was unconstitutional and was bad policy. After the bill was enacted, ACLU and NetChoice criticized the bill. NetChoice sued two months before the law's effective date. The Judge is Amy Totenberg. the suit claims that the law violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments. === Louisiana === ==== Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act (SB 162) ==== On June 28, 2023, Louisiana enacted SB 162, the Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act. It requires social media platforms to verify user age and get parental consent for users under 16, prohibits account holders under 1