This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Google High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Google To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here. Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback Maintain : This WikiProject Merge : Google Mobile Services into List of Google products Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products Other : Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...) create: Help the Google article for a good article status Improve the Outline of Google Get more members using : {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}} Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color Computer science Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=ag77777|U1-employer=AlphaChip|U1-client=AlphaChip} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ag77777 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashleyreed7288.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AnonymousOctahedron, Emreisbir, Tenjikomozawa, SamNoyUSC, Wangjesse21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a lot of phrasing not supported by citations or generally unsuitable for Wikipedia. E.g. "breakthroughs", "leading researcher", "eager to devote own passion", "flexibly combine", etc.

The Mission section is also unsuitable for Wikipedia in this form. --Tobias (Talk) 16:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We (a group of students working on this article) removed the "advertisement" warning banner after rewriting much of the article to have a more balanced tone. We also included more un-biased sources for the list of projects being worked on, as well as added more general content about the project itself and some of the recent controversy surrounding the team's firings and departures. SamNoyUSC (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just announced today: https://gweb-research-imagen.appspot.com/

Where might this fit onto the page? Or would it warrant its own page?

Camdoodlebop (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Google Brain. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 224 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Hi, I represent AlphaChip and am requesting edits to address what we believe are inaccuracies in the article, specifically regarding contested claims about our research. Requested changes: We request removal or modification of the following passage in the article: "However, this claim is contested because claimed results, especially fast chip design, were not properly supported by specific empirical data and found inconsistent with subsequent published research.[55][56][57][58] The paper does not report run times of prior and proposed methods on specific inputs, lacks head-to-head comparisons to sufficiently advanced implementations of prior methods, and is difficult to replicability due to proprietary training and test data." Rationale: The research code and data have been made open source and publicly available on GitHub at https://github.com/google-research/circuit_training, directly addressing the concerns about proprietary data and replicability. We also request modification of: "At least one initially favorable commentary has been retracted upon further review,[59] and the paper is under investigation by Nature.[60]" Rationale: This information is now outdated. Nature completed their investigation and published an addendum in September 2024 upholding AlphaChip's claims.^[1] Suggested replacement text: "At least one initially favorable commentary was retracted upon further review.[59] Following an 18-month investigation, Nature published an addendum in September 2024 that upheld the paper's claims.

Ag77777 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ag77777, do you have a link to Nature's addendum? Thanks Encoded  Talk 💬 20:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here is a link to the Nature Addendum: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08032-5 Ag77777 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the addendum closes the investigation? Is there any way to get confirmation on this? If so, it would be factually incorrect to say that it's still under investigation so that should be updated. According to the original article on Nature's website it says a correction was issued, I think it would not be appropriate to remove the section on the wiki page but I would support updating it to say a correction and/or addendum was released. Thanks, Encoded  Talk 💬 19:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The request also says that "Nature completed their investigation and published an addendum in September 2024 upholding AlphaChip's claims" which makes it sound like Nature wrote it, I'd suggest rewording since it appears to have been written by Google's team. Would "Nature completed their investigation and published an addendum written by members of the Google Brain team in September 2024 upholding AlphaChip's claims" be appropriate? Encoded  Talk 💬 00:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the current state of affairs warrants any change in the article. There is a well known and completely uncontroversial method for showing a new placement method is a breakthrough, or at least an improvement. You simply run it on well-known and public designs, and show it gets better results, or it runs faster, or some other improvement. Here, for example, is a tiny fraction of table V in the paper RePlAce: Advancing Solution Quality and Routability Validation in Global Placement^[1] It straightforwardly shows their method gives better results, although often with worse runtimes:

Table Caption (Optional)

Benchmark	Best Known		RePlace
	Wire Length	CPU time	Wire length	CPU time
Adaptec-1	74.20	13.13	73.01	14.18
BigBlue-3	264.48	33.15	255.07	68.62
NewBlue-7	978.07	246.00	335.19	889.18

In particular, releasing the source code does not show the new method is an improvement, nor do results on unpublished designs. The current status as of late 2024 is summarized here:"Updates Spark Uproar". Until and unless the AlphaChip method is directly and transparently compared with other existing methods, and shown to be better, then claims of the method's superiority will continue to be controversial. LouScheffer (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note for reviewers: an additional request is in progress at Talk:Criticism of Google that may be relevant. Encoded  Talk 💬 19:48, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]