🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 212: How Multi‑Modal Stressors Enable Holistic Evaluation Through Incomplete or Corrupted Inputs in AI Models)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on how to use multi‑modal stressors for holistic evaluation in which stress testing reflects the complexity through incomplete or corrupted inputs in AI models"

Introduction

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems expand into multi‑modal architectures - processing text, images, audio, diagrams, tables, and code - their vulnerabilities become more complex. Real‑world environments rarely present clean, perfectly aligned inputs. Instead, models must interpret incomplete, corrupted, or partially contradictory signals across modalities. This is where multi‑modal stressors become essential. By deliberately introducing degraded or inconsistent inputs, evaluators can observe how the model prioritizes signals, how it compensates for missing information, and where its reasoning begins to break down.

Incomplete or corrupted inputs matter because each modality activates different representational pathways. Text relies on linguistic priors; images rely on spatial embeddings; audio relies on temporal patterns; code relies on structural logic. When one modality is degraded, the model must decide whether to rely more heavily on the remaining modalities or attempt to reconstruct the missing information. That decision exposes its internal hierarchy of cues, a central theme in instruction‑priority testing.

One of the simplest multi‑modal stressors is the partially corrupted image. For example, an image may be blurred, occluded, or missing key regions, while the accompanying text describes a scene that may or may not match the visible content. This tests whether the model over‑trusts visual fragments or defaults to textual interpretation. The result reveals how the model resolves conflicts between incomplete sensory input and linguistic cues - an essential capability for real‑world robustness.

A more advanced technique involves cross‑signal incompleteness, where each modality is missing different pieces of information. For example:

• The text describes an event but omits the key actor.
• The image shows the actor but hides the action.
• The audio clip provides environmental noise but no speech.

The model must integrate these partial signals to form a coherent interpretation. This exposes whether the model can perform multi‑modal reconstruction, or whether it collapses into hallucination or over‑generalization - patterns often surfaced through weak‑point analysis.

Another powerful stressor is corrupted‑modality contradiction, where the corruption itself creates misleading cues. For example, a distorted audio clip may sound angry even though the text describes a calm conversation. Or a corrupted diagram may misalign labels, contradicting the accompanying explanation. These stressors force the model to determine whether the corruption is noise or signal. The model’s behavior reveals whether it can distinguish reliable from unreliable modalities, a key insight for holistic evaluation.

Incomplete inputs can also be used to test temporal resilience. A video clip may drop frames, skip segments, or freeze mid‑action, while the text describes a continuous sequence. The model must decide whether to trust the visual timeline or the textual narrative. This exposes how the model handles temporal reasoning, a capability often overlooked in single‑modality evaluation.

The most challenging multi‑modal stressors involve hybrid corrupted inputs, where multiple modalities degrade in different ways. For example:

• A table with missing values contradicts a narrative summary.
• A diagram with corrupted labels conflicts with a code snippet.
• An audio clip with static obscures key words while the text misidentifies the speaker.

These hybrid contradictions push the model into conceptual regions where no training example exists. The resulting behavior reveals the model’s cross‑modal arbitration strategy, a crucial insight for understanding its robustness.

Ultimately, multi‑modal stressors that use incomplete or corrupted inputs allow evaluators to move beyond surface‑level robustness. By introducing degradation across text, images, audio, diagrams, and structured data, we can map the deep architecture of model reasoning - how it prioritizes modalities, how it compensates for missing information, and where its internal logic becomes unstable. This is the next frontier of boundary‑stress evaluation: not just testing what the model can do, but testing how it behaves when the world becomes noisy, partial, and imperfect.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 211: How Multi‑Modal Stressors Enable Holistic Evaluation Through Cross‑Signal Conflicts in AI Models)

 

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on how to use multi‑modal stressors for holistic evaluation in which stress testing reflects the complexity through Cross‑signal conflicts in AI models"

Introduction

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems evolve into multi‑modal architectures - processing text, images, audio, diagrams, tables, and code - their vulnerabilities no longer reside solely in linguistic reasoning. True robustness requires the ability to reconcile cross‑signal conflicts, situations where different modalities provide competing or contradictory information. Multi‑modal stressors are designed to expose these weaknesses by forcing the model to arbitrate between signals that do not align. This approach produces a more holistic evaluation, revealing how the model prioritizes modalities, how it resolves ambiguity, and where its internal logic becomes unstable.

Cross‑signal conflicts matter because each modality activates distinct representational pathways. Text relies on linguistic priors; images rely on spatial and visual embeddings; audio relies on temporal patterns; code relies on structural logic. When these pathways align, the model behaves predictably. When they diverge, the model must choose which signal to trust. That choice exposes its internal hierarchy of cues, a central theme in instruction‑priority testing.

One of the simplest cross‑signal stressors is the modality mismatch. For example, a prompt may show an image of a crowded street but ask the model to describe the empty field in the picture. This tests whether the model prioritizes visual evidence or textual framing. The result reveals how the model resolves conflicts between sensory input and linguistic cues - an essential capability for real‑world robustness.

A more advanced technique involves signal‑layered contradictions, where each modality provides a different instruction or emotional tone. For example, the text may request a neutral description while the image contains emotionally charged content. Or the text may instruct the model to identify objects, while an accompanying audio clip describes a different scene entirely. These contradictions force the model to reconcile semantic, visual, and temporal signals simultaneously. The model’s resolution strategy reveals whether it treats one modality as dominant or attempts to blend them, often exposing weaknesses similar to those mapped through weak‑point analysis.

Another powerful stressor is cross‑modal task interference, where the model must perform two tasks that rely on incompatible modalities. For example:

• Analyze the sentiment of a paragraph while ignoring the contradictory emotional tone of an audio clip.
• Describe the structure of a diagram while following a textual instruction that mislabels its components.

These stressors test whether the model can maintain task boundaries when modalities compete for attention.

Cross‑signal conflicts can also be introduced through temporal misalignment, where modalities reference different timeframes. A video clip may show one sequence of events while the text describes a different timeline. The model must decide whether to anchor itself to the visual chronology or the textual narrative. This exposes how the model handles temporal reasoning, a capability often overlooked in single‑modality evaluation.

The most challenging multi‑modal stressors involve hybrid contradictions, where modalities interact in structurally incompatible ways. For example:

• A table that contradicts the narrative text.
• A diagram whose labels conflict with the code snippet below it.
• An audio clip that negates the instructions provided in text.

These hybrid contradictions push the model into conceptual regions where no training example exists. The resulting behavior reveals the model’s cross‑modal arbitration strategy, a key insight for holistic evaluation.

Ultimately, multi‑modal stressors allow evaluators to move beyond surface‑level robustness. By introducing cross‑signal conflicts across text, images, audio, diagrams, and structured data, we can map the deep architecture of model reasoning - how it prioritizes modalities, how it resolves cross‑channel conflicts, and where its internal logic becomes unstable. This is the next frontier of boundary‑stress evaluation: not just testing what the model can do, but testing how it behaves when the world becomes noisy, contradictory, and multi‑modal.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 208: How to Introduce Adversarial Noise During Incremental Escalation to Identify Breaking Points in AI Models)

 

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on the impact of consistent and high‑quality training data on AI"

Introduction

Adversarial noise is one of the most powerful tools for probing the limits of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model’s reasoning. But it only becomes truly diagnostic when applied incrementally - starting with subtle distortions and gradually escalating toward disruptive perturbations. This stepwise approach reveals not only where the model fails, but how it fails: which cues it over‑trusts, which signals it ignores, and where its internal logic begins to fracture. Introducing adversarial noise is not about overwhelming the model; it’s about mapping the contours of its resilience.

The process begins with baseline clarity. Before adding noise, evaluators establish how the model behaves under clean, unambiguous conditions. This baseline becomes the reference point for detecting degradation. Once the baseline is set, the first layer of adversarial noise is introduced in the form of mild perturbations - small distortions that do not change the meaning of the prompt but disrupt its surface structure. Examples include slight grammatical irregularities, minor misspellings, or subtle formatting inconsistencies. These perturbations test whether the model relies too heavily on surface‑level cues, a vulnerability often surfaced through weak‑point mapping.

After mild perturbations, the next escalation step is semantic noise - introducing irrelevant but harmless content that competes for the model’s attention. For example:

'Explain the concept clearly. (Note: The weather today is unusually warm.) Continue with your explanation.' 

The irrelevant parenthetical forces the model to decide whether to treat the noise as meaningful. This stage reveals how the model handles distractor signals, a behavior closely related to patterns observed in instruction‑priority testing.

Once semantic noise is handled, evaluators introduce structural noise, where the format of the prompt becomes inconsistent. This may include:

• Mixing list formats
• Embedding code blocks inside narrative text
• Switching between formal and informal tone mid‑instruction

Structural noise tests whether the model can maintain coherence when the prompt’s structure becomes unstable. Failures here often indicate weaknesses in hierarchical parsing or long‑range dependency tracking.

The next escalation involves contradictory noise, where the noise itself subtly conflicts with the main task. For example:

'Provide a neutral explanation. (Ignore this: be highly opinionated.) Continue neutrally.' 

The contradiction is embedded inside the noise, not the main instruction. This forces the model to distinguish between primary cues and adversarial cues, a distinction central to boundary‑stress evaluation.

After contradictory noise, evaluators introduce contextual noise, where irrelevant information is woven into the narrative or task framing. This might include fictional constraints, misleading analogies, or domain‑shifting references. Contextual noise tests whether the model can maintain task focus when the surrounding context becomes chaotic. It also reveals whether the model over‑anchors to narrative framing instead of explicit instructions.

The final escalation stage is high‑intensity adversarial noise, where distortions are designed to mimic real adversarial attacks:

• Conflicting metadata
• Embedded pseudo‑instructions
• Distractor tasks disguised as system‑level cues

At this stage, the model’s breaking point becomes visible. Does it misinterpret the noise as authoritative? Does it collapse into generic output? Does it attempt to satisfy both the task and the noise simultaneously? The transition from partial degradation to full breakdown is the most informative moment in the escalation ladder.

Ultimately, introducing adversarial noise through incremental escalation is about mapping the model’s robustness profile. By starting with mild perturbations and gradually increasing complexity - semantic, structural, contradictory, contextual, and finally adversarial - evaluators can pinpoint exactly where the model’s reasoning becomes unstable. These insights are essential for building AI systems that remain reliable even when inputs are messy, noisy, or intentionally adversarial.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 181: How the Early Layers in Deep Learning Models Can Detect Simple Features)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on how the early layers in deep learning models can detect simple features in the context of AI"

Introduction

One of the most elegant aspects of deep learning is the way its internal structure mirrors the layered complexity of the world. At the foundation of this architecture lie the early layers - components that specialize in detecting simple, low‑level features. These layers may seem modest compared to the deeper, more abstract parts of the network, but they play a crucial role. They act as the sensory foundation upon which all higher‑level understanding is built. Understanding how these early layers work reveals not only the mechanics of deep learning but also why these models are so effective at capturing patterns that humans often overlook.

The first key insight is that early layers operate as feature detectors, identifying the most basic building blocks of a signal. In image models, these features include edges, corners, textures, and simple color gradients. In language models, they correspond to character patterns, subword fragments, punctuation structures, and basic syntactic cues. These features are not meaningful on their own, but they form the raw material from which meaning emerges. Just as the human visual system begins by detecting edges before recognizing objects, deep learning models begin by identifying simple patterns before constructing complex representations.

A second important aspect is how these early layers learn. They are not programmed to detect specific features. Instead, they discover them automatically through training. When a model is exposed to large amounts of data, the early layers adjust their parameters to capture the most statistically useful patterns. In images, edges are among the most informative features because they define boundaries and shapes. In text, character sequences and word fragments are essential for understanding structure. The model learns these features because they consistently help reduce prediction error. This self‑organization is one of the reasons deep learning is so powerful: the model discovers the right features without human intervention.

Another strength of early layers is their universality. The simple features they detect tend to be useful across many tasks. An edge detector trained on one dataset will often work well on another. This is why transfer learning is so effective. When a model trained on millions of images is fine‑tuned for a new task, the early layers usually remain unchanged. They provide a stable foundation of general-purpose features, while the deeper layers adapt to the specifics of the new problem. This mirrors biological systems, where early sensory processing is largely universal, and higher-level interpretation is specialized.

Early layers also excel at capturing local patterns, which is essential for building more complex representations. In convolutional neural networks, for example, early filters scan small regions of an image, detecting local structures. These local features are then combined by deeper layers to form larger, more abstract patterns - textures, shapes, and eventually full objects. In language models, early layers capture local dependencies between characters or words, which deeper layers then assemble into phrases, sentences, and semantic relationships. This hierarchical composition is what allows deep learning models to scale from simple signals to sophisticated understanding.

A further advantage is robustness. Simple features tend to be stable across variations in data. An edge remains an edge even when lighting changes. A character sequence remains the same even when the surrounding context shifts. By anchoring their understanding in these stable features, deep learning models become more resilient to noise and variation. This stability is essential for generalization - the ability to perform well on new, unseen data.

Ultimately, the early layers of deep learning models are not just technical components; they are the foundation of the model’s perceptual world. They transform raw data into structured signals, enabling deeper layers to build meaning, context, and abstraction. When humans and AI collaborate, understanding these foundations helps us appreciate how machines perceive the world - and how their perception can complement our own.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 178: How AI Can Detect Curved Relationships in Complex Patterns)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on how AI can detect curved relationships in complex patterns"

Introduction

One of the most intriguing strengths of modern Artificial Intelligence (AI) is its ability to detect curved, nonlinear relationships hidden inside complex datasets. Humans are naturally inclined toward linear thinking. We look for straight‑line connections: more of X leads to more of Y, or less of X leads to less of Y. This bias toward linearity is cognitively efficient, but it blinds us to the deeper structure of many real‑world systems. In nature, economics, biology, psychology, and technology, relationships often bend, twist, and loop in ways that defy simple intuition. AI, however, is uniquely equipped to uncover these curved patterns - relationships that change direction, accelerate, plateau, or reverse depending on context.

The first reason AI can detect curved relationships is its ability to model nonlinear functions directly. Traditional statistical tools often assume linearity unless explicitly told otherwise. AI models, especially neural networks, do the opposite: they assume nothing. Their architecture allows them to approximate any function - straight, curved, or wildly irregular - by adjusting internal parameters. This flexibility enables AI to capture relationships that humans overlook because they do not fit our mental templates. For example, a medical variable might increase risk up to a point and then decrease it beyond that threshold. A human analyst might miss this U‑shaped curve, but an AI model can detect it naturally.

A second advantage lies in AI’s capacity to explore high‑dimensional interactions. Curved relationships often emerge only when multiple variables interact. A single variable may appear to have no meaningful effect, but when combined with two or three others, a curved pattern suddenly becomes visible. Humans struggle to visualize relationships beyond two dimensions. AI systems, by contrast, can analyze hundreds of variables simultaneously, mapping how they bend and twist together. This is particularly valuable in fields like genomics, where the effect of one gene may depend on the presence or absence of many others, creating curved interactions that only appear in high‑dimensional space.

Another key factor is AI’s ability to detect local patterns rather than forcing global assumptions. Humans tend to look for one overarching rule that explains everything. AI models can break a dataset into many small regions and learn different relationships in each one. A relationship might be linear in one region, curved in another, and flat in a third. Decision trees, random forests, and gradient boosting machines excel at this kind of local pattern detection. They can identify subtle bends in the data that only appear under specific conditions. This ability to adapt to local curvature allows AI to uncover patterns that would otherwise remain hidden.

AI also benefits from its capacity to learn from noise rather than be overwhelmed by it. Curved relationships are often subtle, emerging only after filtering out randomness. Humans tend to see noise as a distraction; AI treats it as part of the landscape. By analyzing massive datasets, AI can distinguish between random fluctuations and genuine curvature. This is essential in fields like climate science, where long‑term curved trends are buried beneath short‑term variability.

Finally, AI’s ability to detect curved relationships is strengthened by continuous learning and iterative refinement. As new data arrives, AI systems can update their internal models, refining the shape of the relationships they detect. Curved patterns often evolve over time - markets shift, ecosystems adapt, diseases mutate. Humans struggle to update their mental models quickly. AI can adjust in real time, capturing new bends and inflection points as they emerge.

The ability of AI to detect curved relationships in complex patterns is not merely a technical achievement. It expands our understanding of the world, revealing structures that lie beyond the reach of intuition. When humans and AI work together - combining human insight with machine‑level pattern detection - we gain a richer, more accurate view of the systems that shape our lives.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭💹Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part 18: There’s More to Noise)

Business Intelligence Series

Visualizations should be built with an audience's characteristics in mind! Upon case, it might be sufficient to show only values or labels of importance (minima, maxima, inflexion points, exceptions, trends), while other times it might be needed to show all or most of the values to provide an accurate extended perspective. It even might be useful to allow users switching between the different perspectives to reduce the clutter when navigating the data or look at the patterns revealed by the clutter. 

In data-based storytelling are typically shown the points, labels and further elements that support the story, the aspects the readers should focus on, though this approach limits the navigability and users’ overall experience. The audience should be able to compare magnitudes and make inferences based on what is shown, and the accurate decoding shouldn’t be taken as given, especially when the audience can associate different meanings to what’s available and what’s missing. 

In decision-making, selecting only some well-chosen values or perspectives to show might increase the chances for a decision to be made, though is this equitable? Cherry-picking may be justified by the purpose, though is in general not a recommended practice! What is not shown can be as important as what is shown, and people should be aware of the implications!

One person’s noise can be another person’s signal. Patterns in the noise can provide more insight compared with the trends revealed in the "unnoisy" data shown! Probably such scenarios are rare, though it’s worth investigating what hides behind the noise. The choice of scale, the use of special types of visualizations or the building of models can reveal more. If it’s not possible to identify automatically such scenarios using the standard software, the users should have the possibility of changing the scale and perspective as seems fit. 

Identifying patterns in what seems random can prove to be a challenge no matter the context and the experience in the field. Occasionally, one might need to go beyond the general methods available and statistical packages can help when used intelligently. However, a presenter’s challenge is to find a plausible narrative around the findings and communicate it further adequately. Additional capabilities must be available to confirm the hypotheses framed and other aspects related to this approach.

It's ideal to build data models and a set of visualizations around them. Most probable some noise may be removed in the process, while other noise will be further investigated. However, this should be done through adjustable visual filters because what is removed can be important as well. Rare events do occur, probably more often than we are aware and they may remain hidden until we find the right perspective that takes them into consideration. 

Probably, some of the noise can be explained by special events that don’t need to be that rare. The challenge is to identify those parameters, associations, models and perspectives that reveal such insights. One’s gut feeling and experience can help in this direction, though novel scenarios can surprise us as well.

Not in every set of data one can find patterns, respectively a story trying to come out. Whether we can identify something worth revealing depends also on the data available at our disposal, respectively on whether the chosen data allow identifying significant patterns. Occasionally, the focus might be too narrow, too wide or too shallow. It’s important to look behind the obvious, to look at data from different perspectives, even if the data seems dull. It’s ideal to have the tools and knowledge needed to explore such cases and here the exposure to other real-life similar scenarios is probably critical!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

📉Graphical Representation: Noise (Just the Quotes)

"While all data contain noise, some data contain signals. Before you can detect a signal, you must filter out the noise." (Donald J Wheeler, "Understanding Variation: The Key to Managing Chaos" 2nd Ed., 2000)

"Noise is a signal we don't like. Noise has two parts. The first has to do with the head and the second with the heart. The first part is the scientific or objective part: Noise is a signal. [...] The second part of noise is the subjective part: It deals with values. It deals with how we draw the fuzzy line between good signals and bad signals. Noise signals are the bad signals. They are the unwanted signals that mask or corrupt our preferred signals. They not only interfere but they tend to interfere at random." (Bart Kosko, "Noise", 2006)

"One person’s signal is another person’s noise and vice versa. We call this relative role reversal the noise-signal duality." (Bart Kosko, "Noise", 2006)

"A signal is a useful message that resides in data. Data that isn’t useful is noise. […] When data is expressed visually, noise can exist not only as data that doesn’t inform but also as meaningless non-data elements of the display (e.g. irrelevant attributes, such as a third dimension of depth in bars, color variation that has no significance, and artificial light and shadow effects)." (Stephen Few, "Signal: Understanding What Matters in a World of Noise", 2015)

"Data contain descriptions. Some are true, some are not. Some are useful, most are not. Skillful use of data requires that we learn to pick out the pieces that are true and useful. [...] To find signals in data, we must learn to reduce the noise - not just the noise that resides in the data, but also the noise that resides in us. It is nearly impossible for noisy minds to perceive anything but noise in data." (Stephen Few, "Signal: Understanding What Matters in a World of Noise", 2015)

"There are two kinds of mistakes that an inappropriate inductive bias can lead to: underfitting and overfitting. Underfitting occurs when the prediction model selected by the algorithm is too simplistic to represent the underlying relationship in the dataset between the descriptive features and the target feature. Overfitting, by contrast, occurs when the prediction model selected by the algorithm is so complex that the model fits to the dataset too closely and becomes sensitive to noise in the data." (John D Kelleher et al, "Fundamentals of Machine Learning for Predictive Data Analytics: Algorithms, Worked Examples, and Case Studies", 2015)

"When we find data quality issues due to valid data during data exploration, we should note these issues in a data quality plan for potential handling later in the project. The most common issues in this regard are missing values and outliers, which are both examples of noise in the data." (John D Kelleher et al, "Fundamentals of Machine Learning for Predictive Data Analytics: Algorithms, worked examples, and case studies", 2015)

"Form simplification means simplifying relationships among the components of the whole, emphasizing the whole and reducing the relevance of individual components by standardizing and generalizing relationships. This results in an increased weight of useful information (signal) against useless information (noise)." (Jorge Camões, "Data at Work: Best practices for creating effective charts and information graphics in Microsoft Excel", 2016)

"In addition to managing how the data is visualized to reduce noise, you can also decrease the visual interference by minimizing the extraneous cognitive load. In these cases, the nonrelevant information and design elements surrounding the data can cause extraneous noise. Poor design or display decisions by the data storyteller can inadvertently interfere with the communication of the intended signal. This form of noise can occur at both a macro and micro level." (Brent Dykes, "Effective Data Storytelling: How to Drive Change with Data, Narrative and Visuals", 2019)

"Visualizations can remove the background noise from enormous sets of data so that only the most important points stand out to the intended audience. This is particularly important in the era of big data. The more data there is, the more chance for noise and outliers to interfere with the core concepts of the data set." (Kate Strachnyi, "ColorWise: A Data Storyteller’s Guide to the Intentional Use of Color", 2023)