Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE

Introduction to Minimum Cost Flow Optimization in Python

Minimum cost flow optimization minimizes the cost of moving flow through a network of nodes and edges. Nodes include sources (supply) and sinks (demand), with different costs and capacity limits. The aim is to find the least costly way to move volume from sources to sinks while adhering to all capacity limitations. Applications Applications of […]

Minimum cost flow optimization minimizes the cost of moving flow through a network of nodes and edges. Nodes include sources (supply) and sinks (demand), with different costs and capacity limits. The aim is to find the least costly way to move volume from sources to sinks while adhering to all capacity limitations.

Applications

Applications of minimum cost flow optimization are vast and varied, spanning multiple industries and sectors. This approach is crucial in logistics and supply chain management, where it is used to minimize transportation costs while ensuring timely delivery of goods. In telecommunications, it helps in optimizing the routing of data through networks to reduce latency and improve bandwidth utilization. The energy sector leverages minimum cost flow optimization to efficiently distribute electricity through power grids, reducing losses and operational costs. Urban planning and infrastructure development also benefit from this optimization technique, as it assists in designing efficient public transportation systems and water distribution networks.

Example

Below is a simple flow optimization example:

The image above illustrates a minimum cost flow optimization problem with six nodes and eight edges. Nodes A and B serve as sources, each with a supply of 50 units, while nodes E and F act as sinks, each with a demand of 40 units. Every edge has a maximum capacity of 25 units, with variable costs indicated in the image. The objective of the optimization is to allocate flow on each edge to move the required units from nodes A and B to nodes E and F, respecting the edge capacities at the lowest possible cost.

Node F can only receive supply from node B. There are two paths: directly or through node D. The direct path has a cost of 2, while the indirect path via D has a combined cost of 3. Thus, 25 units (the maximum edge capacity) are moved directly from B to F. The remaining 15 units are routed via B -D-F to meet the demand.

Currently, 40 out of 50 units have been transferred from node B, leaving a remaining supply of 10 units that can be moved to node E. The available pathways for supplying node E include: A-E and B-E with a cost of 3, A-C-E with a cost of 4, and B-C-E with a cost of 5. Consequently, 25 units are transported from A-E (limited by the edge capacity) and 10 units from B-E (limited by the remaining supply at node B). To meet the demand of 40 units at node E, an additional 5 units are moved via A-C-E, resulting in no flow being allocated to the B-C pathway.

Mathematical formulation

I introduce two mathematical formulations of minimum cost flow optimization:

1. LP (linear program) with continuous variables only

2. MILP (mixed integer linear program) with continuous and discrete variables

I am using following definitions:

Definitions

LP formulation

This formulation only contains decision variables that are continuous, meaning they can have any value as long as all constraints are fulfilled. Decision variables are in this case the flow variables x(u, v) of all edges.

The objective function describes how the costs that are supposed to be minimized are calculated. In this case it is defined as the flow multiplied with the variable cost summed up over all edges:

Constraints are conditions that must be satisfied for the solution to be valid, ensuring that the flow does not exceed capacity limitations.

First, all flows must be non-negative and not exceed to edge capacities:

Flow conservation constraints ensure that the same amount of flow that goes into a node has to come out of the node. These constraints are applied to all nodes that are neither sources nor sinks:

For source and sink nodes the difference of out flow and in flow is smaller or equal the supply of the node:

If v is a source the difference of outflow minus inflow must not exceed the supply s(v). In case v is a sink node we do not allow that more than -s(v) can flow into the node than out of the node (for sinks s(v) is negative).

MILP

Additionally, to the continuous variables of the LP formulation, the MILP formulation also contains discreate variables that can only have specific values. Discrete variables allow to restrict the number of used nodes or edges to certain values. It can also be used to introduce fixed costs for using nodes or edges. In this article I show how to add fixed costs. It is important to note that adding discrete decision variables makes it much more difficult to find an optimal solution, hence this formulation should only be used if a LP formulation is not possible.

The objective function is defined as:

With three terms: variable cost of all edges, fixed cost of all edges, and fixed cost of all nodes.

The maximum flow that can be allocated to an edge depends on the edge’s capacity, the edge selection variable, and the origin node selection variable:

This equation ensures that flow can only be assigned to edges if the edge selection variable and the origin node selection variable are 1.

The flow conservation constraints are equivalent to the LP problem.

Implementation

In this section I explain how to implement a MILP optimization in Python. You can find the code in this repo.

Libraries

To build the flow network, I used NetworkX which is an excellent library (https://networkx.org/) for working with graphs. There are many interesting articles that demonstrate how powerful and easy to use NetworkX is to work with graphs, i.a. customizing NetworkX GraphsNetworkX: Code Demo for Manipulating SubgraphsSocial Network Analysis with NetworkX: A Gentle Introduction.

One important aspect when building an optimization is to make sure that the input is correctly defined. Even one small error can make the problem infeasible or can lead to an unexpected solution. To avoid this, I used Pydantic to validate the user input and raise any issues at the earliest possible stage. This article gives an easy to understand introduction to Pydantic.

To transform the defined network into a mathematical optimization problem I used PuLP. Which allows to define all variables and constraint in an intuitive way. This library also has the advantage that it can use many different solvers in a simple pug-and-play fashion. This article provides good introduction to this library.

Defining nodes and edges

The code below shows how nodes are defined:

from pydantic import BaseModel, model_validator
from typing import Optional

# node and edge definitions
class Node(BaseModel, frozen=True):
    """
    class of network node with attributes:
    name: str - name of node
    demand: float - demand of node (if node is sink)
    supply: float - supply of node (if node is source)
    capacity: float - maximum flow out of node
    type: str - type of node
    x: float - x-coordinate of node
    y: float - y-coordinate of node
    fixed_cost: float - cost of selecting node
    """
    name: str
    demand: Optional[float] = 0.0
    supply: Optional[float] = 0.0
    capacity: Optional[float] = float('inf')
    type: Optional[str] = None
    x: Optional[float] = 0.0
    y: Optional[float] = 0.0
    fixed_cost: Optional[float] = 0.0

    @model_validator(mode='after')
    def validate(self):
        """
        validate if node definition are correct
        """
        # check that demand is non-negative
        if self.demand < 0 or self.demand == float('inf'): raise ValueError('demand must be non-negative and finite')
        # check that supply is non-negative
        if self.supply < 0: raise ValueError('supply must be non-negative')
        # check that capacity is non-negative
        if self.capacity < 0: raise ValueError('capacity must be non-negative')
        # check that fixed_cost is non-negative
        if self.fixed_cost < 0: raise ValueError('fixed_cost must be non-negative')
        return self

Nodes are defined through the Node class which is inherited from Pydantic’s BaseModel. This enables an automatic validation that ensures that all properties are defined with the correct datatype whenever a new object is created. In this case only the name is a required input, all other properties are optional, if they are not provided the specified default value is assigned to them. By setting the “frozen” parameter to True I made all properties immutable, meaning they cannot be changed after the object has been initialized.

The validate method is executed after the object has been initialized and applies more checks to ensure the provided values are as expected. Specifically it checks that demand, supply, capacity, variable cost and fixed cost are not negative. Furthermore, it also does not allow infinite demand as this would lead to an infeasible optimization problem.

These checks look trivial, however their main benefit is that they will trigger an error at the earliest possible stage when an input is incorrect. Thus, they prevent creating a optimization model that is incorrect. Exploring why a model cannot be solved would be much more time consuming as there are many factors that would need to be analyzed, while such “trivial” input error may not be the first aspect to investigate.

Edges are implemented as follows:

class Edge(BaseModel, frozen=True):
"""
class of edge between two nodes with attributes:
origin: 'Node' - origin node of edge
destination: 'Node' - destination node of edge
capacity: float - maximum flow through edge
variable_cost: float - cost per unit flow through edge
fixed_cost: float - cost of selecting edge
"""
origin: Node
destination: Node
capacity: Optional[float] = float('inf')
variable_cost: Optional[float] = 0.0
fixed_cost: Optional[float] = 0.0

@model_validator(mode='after')
def validate(self):
"""
validate of edge definition is correct
"""
# check that node names are different
if self.origin.name == self.destination.name: raise ValueError('origin and destination names must be different')
# check that capacity is non-negative
if self.capacity < 0: raise ValueError('capacity must be non-negative')
# check that variable_cost is non-negative
if self.variable_cost < 0: raise ValueError('variable_cost must be non-negative')
# check that fixed_cost is non-negative
if self.fixed_cost < 0: raise ValueError('fixed_cost must be non-negative')
return self

The required inputs are an origin node and a destination node object. Additionally, capacity, variable cost and fixed cost can be provided. The default value for capacity is infinity which means if no capacity value is provided it is assumed the edge does not have a capacity limitation. The validation ensures that the provided values are non-negative and that origin node name and the destination node name are different.

Initialization of flowgraph object

To define the flowgraph and optimize the flow I created a new class called FlowGraph that is inherited from NetworkX’s DiGraph class. By doing this I can add my own methods that are specific to the flow optimization and at the same time use all methods DiGraph provides:

from networkx import DiGraph
from pulp import LpProblem, LpVariable, LpMinimize, LpStatus

class FlowGraph(DiGraph):
    """
    class to define and solve minimum cost flow problems
    """
    def __init__(self, nodes=[], edges=[]):
        """
        initialize FlowGraph object
        :param nodes: list of nodes
        :param edges: list of edges
        """
        # initialialize digraph
        super().__init__(None)

        # add nodes and edges
        for node in nodes: self.add_node(node)
        for edge in edges: self.add_edge(edge)


    def add_node(self, node):
        """
        add node to graph
        :param node: Node object
        """
        # check if node is a Node object
        if not isinstance(node, Node): raise ValueError('node must be a Node object')
        # add node to graph
        super().add_node(node.name, demand=node.demand, supply=node.supply, capacity=node.capacity, type=node.type, 
                         fixed_cost=node.fixed_cost, x=node.x, y=node.y)
        
    
    def add_edge(self, edge):    
        """
        add edge to graph
        @param edge: Edge object
        """   
        # check if edge is an Edge object
        if not isinstance(edge, Edge): raise ValueError('edge must be an Edge object')
        # check if nodes exist
        if not edge.origin.name in super().nodes: self.add_node(edge.origin)
        if not edge.destination.name in super().nodes: self.add_node(edge.destination)

        # add edge to graph
        super().add_edge(edge.origin.name, edge.destination.name, capacity=edge.capacity, 
                         variable_cost=edge.variable_cost, fixed_cost=edge.fixed_cost)

FlowGraph is initialized by providing a list of nodes and edges. The first step is to initialize the parent class as an empty graph. Next, nodes and edges are added via the methods add_node and add_edge. These methods first check if the provided element is a Node or Edge object. If this is not the case an error will be raised. This ensures that all elements added to the graph have passed the validation of the previous section. Next, the values of these objects are added to the Digraph object. Note that the Digraph class also uses add_node and add_edge methods to do so. By using the same method name I am overwriting these methods to ensure that whenever a new element is added to the graph it must be added through the FlowGraph methods which validate the object type. Thus, it is not possible to build a graph with any element that has not passed the validation tests.

Initializing the optimization problem

The method below converts the network into an optimization model, solves it, and retrieves the optimized values.

  def min_cost_flow(self, verbose=True):
        """
        run minimum cost flow optimization
        @param verbose: bool - print optimization status (default: True)
        @return: status of optimization
        """
        self.verbose = verbose

        # get maximum flow
        self.max_flow = sum(node['demand'] for _, node in super().nodes.data() if node['demand'] > 0)

        start_time = time.time()
        # create LP problem
        self.prob = LpProblem("FlowGraph.min_cost_flow", LpMinimize)
        # assign decision variables
        self._assign_decision_variables()
        # assign objective function
        self._assign_objective_function()
        # assign constraints
        self._assign_constraints()
        if self.verbose: print(f"Model creation time: {time.time() - start_time:.2f} s")

        start_time = time.time()
        # solve LP problem
        self.prob.solve()
        solve_time = time.time() - start_time

        # get status
        status = LpStatus[self.prob.status]

        if verbose:
            # print optimization status
            if status == 'Optimal':
                # get objective value
                objective = self.prob.objective.value()
                print(f"Optimal solution found: {objective:.2f} in {solve_time:.2f} s")
            else:
                print(f"Optimization status: {status} in {solve_time:.2f} s")
        
        # assign variable values
        self._assign_variable_values(status=='Optimal')

        return status

Pulp’s LpProblem is initialized, the constant LpMinimize defines it as a minimization problem — meaning it is supposed to minimize the value of the objective function. In the following lines all decision variables are initialized, the objective function as well as all constraints are defined. These methods will be explained in the following sections.

Next, the problem is solved, in this step the optimal value of all decision variables is determined. Following the status of the optimization is retrieved. When the status is “Optimal” an optimal solution could be found other statuses are “Infeasible” (it is not possible to fulfill all constraints), “Unbounded” (the objective function can have an arbitrary low values), and “Undefined” meaning the problem definition is not complete. In case no optimal solution was found the problem definition needs to be reviewed.

Finally, the optimized values of all variables are retrieved and assigned to the respective nodes and edges.

Defining decision variables

All decision variables are initialized in the method below:

   def _assign_variable_values(self, opt_found):
        """
        assign decision variable values if optimal solution found, otherwise set to None
        @param opt_found: bool - if optimal solution was found
        """
        # assign edge values        
        for _, _, edge in super().edges.data():
            # initialize values
            edge['flow'] = None
            edge['selected'] = None
            # check if optimal solution found
            if opt_found and edge['flow_var'] is not None:                    
                edge['flow'] = edge['flow_var'].varValue                    

                if edge['selection_var'] is not None: 
                    edge['selected'] = edge['selection_var'].varValue

        # assign node values
        for _, node in super().nodes.data():
            # initialize values
            node['selected'] = None
            if opt_found:                
                # check if node has selection variable
                if node['selection_var'] is not None: 
                    node['selected'] = node['selection_var'].varValue

First it iterates through all edges and assigns continuous decision variables if the edge capacity is greater than 0. Furthermore, if fixed costs of the edge are greater than 0 a binary decision variable is defined as well. Next, it iterates through all nodes and assigns binary decision variables to nodes with fixed costs. The total number of continuous and binary decision variables is counted and printed at the end of the method.

Defining objective

After all decision variables have been initialized the objective function can be defined:

    def _assign_objective_function(self):
        """
        define objective function
        """
        objective = 0
 
        # add edge costs
        for _, _, edge in super().edges.data():
            if edge['selection_var'] is not None: objective += edge['selection_var'] * edge['fixed_cost']
            if edge['flow_var'] is not None: objective += edge['flow_var'] * edge['variable_cost']
        
        # add node costs
        for _, node in super().nodes.data():
            # add node selection costs
            if node['selection_var'] is not None: objective += node['selection_var'] * node['fixed_cost']

        self.prob += objective, 'Objective',

The objective is initialized as 0. Then for each edge fixed costs are added if the edge has a selection variable, and variable costs are added if the edge has a flow variable. For all nodes with selection variables fixed costs are added to the objective as well. At the end of the method the objective is added to the LP object.

Defining constraints

All constraints are defined in the method below:

  def _assign_constraints(self):
        """
        define constraints
        """
        # count of contraints
        constr_count = 0
        # add capacity constraints for edges with fixed costs
        for origin_name, destination_name, edge in super().edges.data():
            # get capacity
            capacity = edge['capacity'] if edge['capacity'] < float('inf') else self.max_flow
            rhs = capacity
            if edge['selection_var'] is not None: rhs *= edge['selection_var']
            self.prob += edge['flow_var'] <= rhs, f"capacity_{origin_name}-{destination_name}",
            constr_count += 1
            
            # get origin node
            origin_node = super().nodes[origin_name]
            # check if origin node has a selection variable
            if origin_node['selection_var'] is not None:
                rhs = capacity * origin_node['selection_var'] 
                self.prob += (edge['flow_var'] <= rhs, f"node_selection_{origin_name}-{destination_name}",)
                constr_count += 1

        total_demand = total_supply = 0
        # add flow conservation constraints
        for node_name, node in super().nodes.data():
            # aggregate in and out flows
            in_flow = 0
            for _, _, edge in super().in_edges(node_name, data=True):
                if edge['flow_var'] is not None: in_flow += edge['flow_var']
            
            out_flow = 0
            for _, _, edge in super().out_edges(node_name, data=True):
                if edge['flow_var'] is not None: out_flow += edge['flow_var']

            # add node capacity contraint
            if node['capacity'] < float('inf'):
                self.prob += out_flow = demand - supply
                rhs = node['demand'] - node['supply']
                self.prob += in_flow - out_flow >= rhs, f"flow_balance_{node_name}",
            constr_count += 1

            # update total demand and supply
            total_demand += node['demand']
            total_supply += node['supply']

        if self.verbose:
            print(f"Constraints: {constr_count}")
            print(f"Total supply: {total_supply}, Total demand: {total_demand}")

First, capacity constraints are defined for each edge. If the edge has a selection variable the capacity is multiplied with this variable. In case there is no capacity limitation (capacity is set to infinity) but there is a selection variable, the selection variable is multiplied with the maximum flow that has been calculated by aggregating the demand of all nodes. An additional constraint is added in case the edge’s origin node has a selection variable. This constraint means that flow can only come out of this node if the selection variable is set to 1.

Following, the flow conservation constraints for all nodes are defined. To do so the total in and outflow of the node is calculated. Getting all in and outgoing edges can easily be done by using the in_edges and out_edges methods of the DiGraph class. If the node has a capacity limitation the maximum outflow will be constraint by that value. For the flow conservation it is necessary to check if the node is either a source or sink node or a transshipment node (demand equals supply). In the first case the difference between inflow and outflow must be greater or equal the difference between demand and supply while in the latter case in and outflow must be equal.

The total number of constraints is counted and printed at the end of the method.

Retrieving optimized values

After running the optimization, the optimized variable values can be retrieved with the following method:

    def _assign_variable_values(self, opt_found):
        """
        assign decision variable values if optimal solution found, otherwise set to None
        @param opt_found: bool - if optimal solution was found
        """
        # assign edge values        
        for _, _, edge in super().edges.data():
            # initialize values
            edge['flow'] = None
            edge['selected'] = None
            # check if optimal solution found
            if opt_found and edge['flow_var'] is not None:                    
                edge['flow'] = edge['flow_var'].varValue                    

                if edge['selection_var'] is not None: 
                    edge['selected'] = edge['selection_var'].varValue

        # assign node values
        for _, node in super().nodes.data():
            # initialize values
            node['selected'] = None
            if opt_found:                
                # check if node has selection variable
                if node['selection_var'] is not None: 
                    node['selected'] = node['selection_var'].varValue 

This method iterates through all edges and nodes, checks if decision variables have been assigned and adds the decision variable value via varValue to the respective edge or node.

Demo

To demonstrate how to apply the flow optimization I created a supply chain network consisting of 2 factories, 4 distribution centers (DC), and 15 markets. All goods produced by the factories have to flow through one distribution center until they can be delivered to the markets.

Supply chain problem

Node properties were defined:

Node definitions

Ranges mean that uniformly distributed random numbers were generated to assign these properties. Since Factories and DCs have fixed costs the optimization also needs to decide which of these entities should be selected.

Edges are generated between all Factories and DCs, as well as all DCs and Markets. The variable cost of edges is calculated as the Euclidian distance between origin and destination node. Capacities of edges from Factories to DCs are set to 350 while from DCs to Markets are set to 100.

The code below shows how the network is defined and how the optimization is run:

# Define nodes
factories = [Node(name=f'Factory {i}', supply=700, type='Factory', fixed_cost=100, x=random.uniform(0, 2),
                  y=random.uniform(0, 1)) for i in range(2)]
dcs = [Node(name=f'DC {i}', fixed_cost=25, capacity=500, type='DC', x=random.uniform(0, 2), 
            y=random.uniform(0, 1)) for i in range(4)]
markets = [Node(name=f'Market {i}', demand=random.randint(1, 100), type='Market', x=random.uniform(0, 2), 
                y=random.uniform(0, 1)) for i in range(15)]

# Define edges
edges = []
# Factories to DCs
for factory in factories:
    for dc in dcs:
        distance = ((factory.x - dc.x)**2 + (factory.y - dc.y)**2)**0.5
        edges.append(Edge(origin=factory, destination=dc, capacity=350, variable_cost=distance))

# DCs to Markets
for dc in dcs:
    for market in markets:
        distance = ((dc.x - market.x)**2 + (dc.y - market.y)**2)**0.5
        edges.append(Edge(origin=dc, destination=market, capacity=100, variable_cost=distance))

# Create FlowGraph
G = FlowGraph(edges=edges)

G.min_cost_flow()

The output of flow optimization is as follows:

Variable types: 68 continuous, 6 binary
Constraints: 161
Total supply: 1400.0, Total demand: 909.0
Model creation time: 0.00 s
Optimal solution found: 1334.88 in 0.23 s

The problem consists of 68 continuous variables which are the edges’ flow variables and 6 binary decision variables which are the selection variables of the Factories and DCs. There are 161 constraints in total which consist of edge and node capacity constraints, node selection constraints (edges can only have flow if the origin node is selected), and flow conservation constraints. The next line shows that the total supply is 1400 which is higher than the total demand of 909 (if the demand was higher than the supply the problem would be infeasible). Since this is a small optimization problem, the time to define the optimization model was less than 0.01 seconds. The last line shows that an optimal solution with an objective value of 1335 could be found in 0.23 seconds.

Additionally, to the code I described in this post I also added two methods that visualize the optimized solution. The code of these methods can also be found in the repo.

Flow graph

All nodes are located by their respective x and y coordinates. The node and edge size is relative to the total volume that is flowing through. The edge color refers to its utilization (flow over capacity). Dashed lines show edges without flow allocation.

In the optimal solution both Factories were selected which is inevitable as the maximum supply of one Factory is 700 and the total demand is 909. However, only 3 of the 4 DCs are used (DC 0 has not been selected).

In general the plot shows the Factories are supplying the nearest DCs and DCs the nearest Markets. However, there are a few exceptions to this observation: Factory 0 also supplies DC 3 although Factory 1 is nearer. This is due to the capacity constraints of the edges which only allow to move at most 350 units per edge. However, the closest Markets to DC 3 have a slightly higher demand, hence Factory 0 is moving additional units to DC 3 to meet that demand. Although Market 9 is closest to DC 3 it is supplied by DC 2. This is because DC 3 would require an additional supply from Factory 0 to supply this market and since the total distance from Factory 0 over DC 3 is longer than the distance from Factory 0 through DC 2, Market 9 is supplied via the latter route.

Another way to visualize the results is via a Sankey diagram which focuses on visualizing the flows of the edges:

Sankey flow diagram

The colors represent the edges’ utilizations with lowest utilizations in green changing to yellow and red for the highest utilizations. This diagram shows very well how much flow goes through each node and edge. It highlights the flow from Factory 0 to DC 3 and also that Market 13 is supplied by DC 2 and DC 1.

Summary

Minimum cost flow optimizations can be a very helpful tool in many domains like logistics, transportation, telecommunication, energy sector and many more. To apply this optimization it is important to translate a physical system into a mathematical graph consisting of nodes and edges. This should be done in a way to have as few discrete (e.g. binary) decision variables as necessary as those make it significantly more difficult to find an optimal solution. By combining Python’s NetworkX, Pulp and Pydantic libraries I built an flow optimization class that is intuitive to initialize and at the same time follows a generalized formulation which allows to apply it in many different use cases. Graph and flow diagrams are very helpful to understand the solution found by the optimizer.

If not otherwise stated all images were created by the author.

Shape
Shape
Stay Ahead

Explore More Insights

Stay ahead with more perspectives on cutting-edge power, infrastructure, energy,  bitcoin and AI solutions. Explore these articles to uncover strategies and insights shaping the future of industries.

Shape

From packets to prompts: What Cisco’s AITECH certification means for IT pros

Cisco positions the AITECH learning path as a bridge from “traditional knowledge-based work” to innovation-driven roles augmented by AI, explicitly targeting professionals who need to design technical solutions, automate tasks, and lead teams using modern AI tools and methodologies. The curriculum spans AI-assisted code generation, AI-driven data analysis, model customization (including RAG),

Read More »

HPE’s latest Juniper routers target large‑scale AI fabrics

The three new models give customers several options for configurations and throughput capacity, but they all share support for the same deep buffers, security, and optics for AI network fabric buildouts, Francis said. In addition to the new hardware, HPE added new AI support, including a Model Context Protocol (MCP)

Read More »

Energy Department Approves Export Expansion at Corpus Christi LNG

CORPUS CHRISTI, TX—U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright today signed an export authorization for a 12% expansion in exports at Cheniere Energy’s Corpus Christi liquefied natural gas (LNG) Terminal.  Today’s authorization allows additional exports of up to 0.47 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of U.S. natural gas as LNG to non-Free Trade Agreement (non-FTA) countries from Trains 8 and 9 of the Corpus Christi Stage 3 Project, known as the Midscale Trains 8 & 9 Project. With today’s order, Corpus Christi LNG is now authorized to export a total of 4.45 Bcf/d, making it the second largest LNG export project in the U.S. Secretary Wright announced the export expansion approval during a visit to the terminal. He also highlighted the United States’ leadership in LNG exports and the recent 10-year anniversary of the first cargo of U.S. LNG from the lower-48 states. “In the last ten years, American innovation and President Trump’s leadership transformed the United States into the world’s largest exporter of LNG,” said Secretary Wright. “This order helps further strengthen America’s LNG export capacity, delivering peace abroad and prosperity for Americans at home. I could not be prouder to be here today in Corpus Christi, standing alongside the American workers responsible for unleashing American energy dominance.”  “Every action we’re taking is focused on providing more reliable and secure energy to the world,” said Kyle Haustveit, Assistant Secretary of the Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office. “Our commitment to strengthening global partnerships through LNG exports helps to ensure a stable energy future and drive economic prosperity.”  Corpus Christi LNG has been operating as an export terminal since 2018, and Cheniere Energy announced a positive final investment decision of Trains 8 and 9 in June 2025. Today, the United States is the world’s largest producer of natural gas and LNG exporter.  Since the Trump Administration ended the previous administration’s LNG export approval ban to non-FTA countries, the Department has approved more than 18.2 Bcf/d

Read More »

Energy Department Announces $171.5 Million To Expand U.S. Geothermal Energy

Support for Field-Scale Tests and Exploration Drilling Can Help Advance Affordable, Reliable, Secure Geothermal Energy for American Homes and Businesses WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced a funding opportunity of $171.5 million to support next-generation geothermal field-scale tests for both electricity generation and exploration drilling to support characterization and potential confirmation of promising geothermal prospects. The activities enabled by this opportunity will help deliver on President Trump’s Executive Order, Unleashing American Energy by advancing geothermal technology, innovation, and exploration, in turn supporting the potential for geothermal energy to provide affordable, reliable, around-the-clock domestic electricity to Americans nationwide. “Work under this opportunity will directly support our commitments to advance energy addition, reduce energy costs for American families and businesses, and unleash American energy dominance and innovation,” said DOE Assistant Secretary of the Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office Kyle Haustveit. “Thanks to President Trump’s America First Energy Agenda, these demonstrations and drilling activities will help us realize the enormous potential of geothermal to spur domestic manufacturing, enable data center growth, and provide affordable, reliable, and secure energy solutions nationwide.” The funding opportunity includes six topics with varied levels of funding and awards anticipated. For the first round of applications, two of the six topics will be open, seeking field tests for enhanced geothermal systems and drilling for next-generation and hydrothermal resource characterization / confirmation. Although the United States leads the world in geothermal electricity capacity with about four gigawatts, DOE analysis shows the potential for at least 300 gigawatts of reliable, flexible geothermal power on the U.S. grid by 2050. Projects under this opportunity are expected to help derisk geothermal development approaches and locations nationwide, which can encourage private investment, spur industry growth, and help realize the country’s geothermal potential. Letters of Intent for the opportunity are due March 27, 2026, and full applications are due April 30, 2026.

Read More »

Energy Department Announces Largest Loan in Department History, Delivering Over $7 Billion in Electricity Cost Savings for Georgia and Alabama Customers

WASHINGTON—U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright today announced the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Dominance Financing (EDF) has closed a historic $26.5 billion loan package to deliver over $7 billion in electricity cost savings to millions of customers in Georgia and Alabama. In accordance with President Trump’s Executive Order, Unleashing American Energy, this unprecedented loan package will support two wholly owned subsidiaries of Southern Company. Funded under President Trump’s Working Families Tax Cut, the investment will lower American energy costs, create thousands of jobs, and increase grid reliability in Georgia and Alabama. “Thanks to President Trump and the Working Families Tax Cut, the Energy Department is lowering energy costs and ensuring the American people have access to affordable, reliable, and secure energy for decades to come,” said Secretary Wright. “The President has been clear: America must reverse the energy subtraction agenda of past administrations and add more reliable power generation to our electrical grid. These loans will not only lower energy costs but also create thousands of jobs and increase grid reliability for the people of Georgia and Alabama.” The two loans will build or upgrade over 16 gigawatts (GW) of firm reliable power to the electrical grid. This includes 5 GW of new gas generation, 6 GW in nuclear improved through upgrades license renewals, hydropower modernization, battery energy storage systems and over 1,300 miles of transmission and grid enhancement projects. These loans represent the largest government investment aimed at directly lowering consumer energy costs and increasing grid reliability. Once all funds are received through the program, the loans are estimated to reduce Southern Company’s interest expenses by over $300 million per year, helping expedite lower electricity costs for customers. Southern Company is among the first utilities working with the DOE and the Trump Administration to restore American

Read More »

Energy Secretary Keeps Critical Generation Online in Mid-Atlantic

Emergency order keeps critical generation online and addresses critical grid reliability issues facing the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States WASHINGTON—U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright issued an emergency order to address critical grid reliability issues facing the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The emergency order directs PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), in coordination with Constellation Energy Corporation, to ensure Units 3 and 4 of the Eddystone Generating Station in Pennsylvania remain available for operation and to employ economic dispatch to minimize costs for the American people. The units were originally slated to shut down on May 31, 2025. “The energy sources that perform when you need them most are inherently the most valuable—that’s why natural gas and oil were valuable during recent winter storms,” Secretary Wright said. “Hundreds of American lives have likely been saved because of President Trump’s actions keeping critical generation online, including this Pennsylvania generating station which ran during Winter Storm Fern. This emergency order will mitigate the risk of blackouts and maintain affordable, reliable, and secure electricity access across the region.” The Eddystone Units were integral in stabilizing the grid during Winter Storm Fern. Between January 26-29, the units ran for over 124 hours cumulatively, providing critical generation in the midst of the energy emergency. As outlined in DOE’s Resource Adequacy Report, power outages could increase by 100 times in 2030 if the U.S. continues to take reliable power offline. Furthermore, NERC’s 2025 Long-Term Reliability Assessment warns, “The continuing shift in the resource mix toward weather-dependent resources and less fuel diversity increases risks of supply shortfalls during winter months.” Secretary Wright ordered that the two Eddystone Generating Station units remain online past their planned retirement date in a May 30, 2025 emergency order. Subsequent orders were issued on August 28, 2025 and November 26, 2025. Keeping these units operational

Read More »

Insights: Venezuela – new legal frameworks vs. the inertia of history

@import url(‘https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Inter:[email protected]&display=swap’); a { color: var(–color-primary-main); } .ebm-page__main h1, .ebm-page__main h2, .ebm-page__main h3, .ebm-page__main h4, .ebm-page__main h5, .ebm-page__main h6 { font-family: Inter; } body { line-height: 150%; letter-spacing: 0.025em; font-family: Inter; } button, .ebm-button-wrapper { font-family: Inter; } .label-style { text-transform: uppercase; color: var(–color-grey); font-weight: 600; font-size: 0.75rem; } .caption-style { font-size: 0.75rem; opacity: .6; } #onetrust-pc-sdk [id*=btn-handler], #onetrust-pc-sdk [class*=btn-handler] { background-color: #c19a06 !important; border-color: #c19a06 !important; } #onetrust-policy a, #onetrust-pc-sdk a, #ot-pc-content a { color: #c19a06 !important; } #onetrust-consent-sdk #onetrust-pc-sdk .ot-active-menu { border-color: #c19a06 !important; } #onetrust-consent-sdk #onetrust-accept-btn-handler, #onetrust-banner-sdk #onetrust-reject-all-handler, #onetrust-consent-sdk #onetrust-pc-btn-handler.cookie-setting-link { background-color: #c19a06 !important; border-color: #c19a06 !important; } #onetrust-consent-sdk .onetrust-pc-btn-handler { color: #c19a06 !important; border-color: #c19a06 !important; } In this Insights episode of the Oil & Gas Journal ReEnterprised podcast, Head of Content Chris Smith updates the evolving situation in Venezuela as the industry attempts to navigate the best path forward while the two governments continue to hammer out the details. The discussion centers on the new legal frameworks being established in both countries within the context of fraught relations stretching back for decades. Want to hear more? Listen in on a January episode highlighting industry’s initial take following the removal of Nicholas Maduro from power. References Politico podcast Monaldi Substack Baker webinar Washington, Caracas open Venezuela to allow more oil sales 

Read More »

Eni makes Calao South discovery offshore Ivory Coast

@import url(‘https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Inter:[email protected]&display=swap’); a { color: var(–color-primary-main); } .ebm-page__main h1, .ebm-page__main h2, .ebm-page__main h3, .ebm-page__main h4, .ebm-page__main h5, .ebm-page__main h6 { font-family: Inter; } body { line-height: 150%; letter-spacing: 0.025em; font-family: Inter; } button, .ebm-button-wrapper { font-family: Inter; } .label-style { text-transform: uppercase; color: var(–color-grey); font-weight: 600; font-size: 0.75rem; } .caption-style { font-size: 0.75rem; opacity: .6; } #onetrust-pc-sdk [id*=btn-handler], #onetrust-pc-sdk [class*=btn-handler] { background-color: #c19a06 !important; border-color: #c19a06 !important; } #onetrust-policy a, #onetrust-pc-sdk a, #ot-pc-content a { color: #c19a06 !important; } #onetrust-consent-sdk #onetrust-pc-sdk .ot-active-menu { border-color: #c19a06 !important; } #onetrust-consent-sdk #onetrust-accept-btn-handler, #onetrust-banner-sdk #onetrust-reject-all-handler, #onetrust-consent-sdk #onetrust-pc-btn-handler.cookie-setting-link { background-color: #c19a06 !important; border-color: #c19a06 !important; } #onetrust-consent-sdk .onetrust-pc-btn-handler { color: #c19a06 !important; border-color: #c19a06 !important; } Eni SPA discovered gas and condensate in the Murene South-1X exploration well in Block CI-501, Ivory Coast. The well is the first exploration in the block and was drilled by the Saipem Santorini drilling ship about 8 km southwest of the Murene-1X discovery well in adjacent CI-205 block. The well was drilled to about 5,000 m TD in 2,200 m of water. Extensive data acquisition confirmed a main hydrocarbon bearing interval in high-quality Cenomanian sands with a gross thickness of about 50 m with excellent petrophysical properties, the operator said. Murene South-1X will undergo a full conventional drill stem test (DST) to assess the production capacity of this discovery, named Calao South. Calao South confirms the potential of the Calao channel complex that also includes the Calao discovery. It is the second largest discovery in the country after Baleine, with estimated volumes of up to 5.0 tcf of gas and 450 million bbl of condensate (about 1.4 billion bbl of oil). Eni is operator of Block CI-501 (90%) with partner Petroci Holding (10%).

Read More »

Why do data centers need so much water?

Another legacy cooling technology in data centers is what’s called a cooling tower. A cooling tower sits outside of the main building, and the water cascades down these towers like a waterfall. However, the tower is open to the atmosphere to let natural cooling in. The churn of the water dissipates the heat, but there is significant evaporation in the process. “It evaporates a lot. I mean, we’re talking many, many Olympic swimming pools worth of water on a daily basis in some of these data centers,” said Green. “Some of the hyperscalers I work with are still using open cooling tower solutions, even today.” There were other reasons for using evaporation. For starters, evaporation equipment takes up a lot less space the chilled water equipment. Secondly is the price. Chilled water-cooling costs about 10% to 15% more than equivalent evaporation technology. But that is changing, Green notes, as more and more societal pressure, economic pressure around water consumption continues to move to the forefront, data centers are being forced to adapt. “We’re in a market now where we can use air cooled chillers that don’t evaporate water like a water-cooled chiller does, and have a very, very similar level of overall system efficiency,” he said. We are also seeing the advent of closed loop technology, where liquid is pumped into a system to absorb heat and then pumped out to be cooled and recirculated, much like a car radiator. Gamers have been on the forefront of liquid cooling and closed loop with all-in-one coolers for gaming PCs becoming standard issue now.

Read More »

Netskope targets AI-driven network bottlenecks with AI Fast Path

AI Fast Path focuses on optimizing traffic flows between enterprise users, the Netskope cloud, and major AI providers. Netskope says more than 90% of its 120 NewEdge data centers can now connect to leading AI applications in less than five milliseconds from the Netskope cloud, an effort aimed at minimizing added delay as traffic is inspected for data loss prevention (DLP), threat protection, and policy enforcement. “Customers realized that if they don’t adopt these AI apps, they’re probably going to be extinct in a few years. At the same time, we can’t afford to compromise on security,” Arandjelovic says. “So, with NewEdge and the AI Fast Path, we’ve created a super-optimized path where there is literally barely a bump in the wire. At the same time, they are not compromising security, because you’re passing through our cloud and getting all the benefits of our data protection and threat protection.” As a set of capabilities within NewEdge, AI Fast Path enables better performance and efficiency for AI applications. According to Netskope, AI Fast Path provides enterprises with:

Read More »

AMD strikes massive AI chip deal with Meta

The funding is also unique. Instead of a cash purchase, AMD has reportedly given Meta warrants to buy up to 160 million shares at $0.01 each. Stock warrants are financial instruments that give you the right (but not the obligation) to buy a company’s stock at a fixed price before a certain expiration date, according to the vendors. With 1.6 billion shares outstanding, Meta is poised to acquire 10% of AMD. But perhaps not. These shares vest only as Meta buys more computing capacity. The final tranche vests only if AMD’s stock price hits $600, according to a recent 8K filing. AMD shares are currently valued at just over $200 as of this writing. The deal is identical to the one AMD struck with OpenAI last October. That deal was also for 6 GW worth of GPUs and included a warrant for up to 160 million AMD common stock shares structured to payout once certain targets were met. Meta is not playing favorites. Last week it announced that it will also deploy standalone Nvidia Grace CPUs in its production data centers, citing greatly improved performance-per-watt. That doesn’t come as a surprise to Gaurav Gupta, vice president analyst at Gartner, who says we are compute constrained and Hyperscalers or frontier model companies will use a multisource approach to get access to compute.  “No one wants to be stuck with a single vendor. Diversify and then different workloads have different compute needs.,” he said.

Read More »

Nvidia lines up partners to boost security for industrial operations

Akamai extends its micro-segmentation and zero-trust security platform Guardicore to run on Nvidia BlueField GPUs The integration offloads user-configurable security processes from the host system to the Nvidia BlueField DPU and enables zero-trust segmentation without requiring software agents on fragile or legacy systems, according to Akamai. Organizations can implement this hardware-isolated, “agentless” security approach to help align with regulatory requirements and lower their risk profile for cyber insurance. “It delivers deep, out-of-band visibility across systems, networks, and applications without disrupting operations. Security policies can be enforced in real time and are capable of creating a strong protective boundary around critical operational systems. The result is trusted insight into operational activity and improved overall cyber resilience,” according to Akamai. Forescout works with Nvidia to bring zero-trust technology to OT networks Forescout applies network segmentation to contain lateral movement and enforce zero-trust controls. The technology would be further integrated into partnership work already being done by the two companies. By running Forescout’s on-premises sensor directly on the Nvidia BlueField, part of Nvidia Cybersecurity AI platform, customers can offload intensive computing tasks, such as deep packet inspections. This speeds up data processing, enhances asset intelligence, and improves real-time monitoring, providing security teams with the insights needed to stay ahead of emerging threats, according to Forescout. Palo Alto to demo Prisma AIRS AI Runtime Security on Nvidia BlueField DPU Palo Alto Networks recently partnered with Nvidia to run its Prisma AI-powered Radio Security(AIRs) package on the Nvidia BlueField DPU and will show off the technology at the conference. The technology is part of the Nvidia Enterprise AI Factory validated design and can offer real-time security protection for industrial network settings. “Prisma AIRS AI Runtime Security delivers deep visibility into industrial traffic and continuous monitoring for abnormal behavior. By running these security services on Nvidia BlueField, inspection

Read More »

Raising the temp on liquid cooling

IBM isn’t the only one. “We’ve been doing liquid cooling since 2012 on our supercomputers,” says Scott Tease, vice president and general manager of AI and high-performance computing at Lenovo’s infrastructure solutions group. “And we’ve been improving it ever since—we’re now on the sixth generation of that technology.” And the liquid Lenovo uses in its Neptune liquid cooling solution is warm water. Or, more precisely, hot water: 45 degrees Celsius. And when the water leaves the servers, it’s even hotter, Tease says. “I don’t have to chill that water, even if I’m in a hot climate,” he says. Even at high temperatures, the water still provides enough cooling to the chips that it has real value. “Generally, a data center will use evaporation to chill water down,” Tease adds. “Since we don’t have to chill the water, we don’t have to use evaporation. That’s huge amounts of savings on the water. For us, it’s almost like a perfect solution. It delivers the highest performance possible, the highest density possible, the lowest power consumption. So, it’s the most sustainable solution possible.” So, how is the water cooled down? It gets piped up to the roof, Tease says, where there are giant radiators with massive amounts of surface area. The heat radiates away, and then all the water flows right back to the servers again. Though not always. The hot water can also be used to, say, heat campus or community swimming pools. “We have data centers in the Nordics who are giving the heat to the local communities’ water systems,” Tease says.

Read More »

Vertiv’s AI Infrastructure Surge: Record Orders, Liquid Cooling Expansion, and Grid-Scale Power Reflect Data Center Growth

2) “Units of compute”: OneCore and SmartRun On the earnings call, Albertazzi highlighted Vertiv OneCore, an end-to-end data center solution designed to accelerate “time to token,” scaling in 12.5 MW building blocks; and Vertiv SmartRun, a prefabricated white space infrastructure solution aimed at rapidly accelerating fit-out and readiness. He pointed to collaborations (including Hut 8 and Compass Data Centers) as proof points of adoption, emphasizing that SmartRun can stand alone or plug into OneCore. 3) Cooling evolution: hybrid thermal chains and the “trim cooler” Asked how cooling architectures may change (amid industry chatter about warmer-temperature operations and shifting mixes of chillers, CDUs, and other components) Albertazzi leaned into complexity as a feature, not a bug. He argued heat rejection doesn’t disappear, even if some GPU loads can run at higher temperatures. Instead, the future looks hybrid, with mixed loads and resiliency requirements forcing more nuanced thermal chains. Vertiv’s strategic product anchor here is its “trim cooler” concept: a chiller optimized for higher-temperature operation while retaining flexibility for lower-temperature requirements in the same facility, maximizing free cooling where climate and design allow. And importantly, Albertazzi dismissed the idea that CDUs are going away: “We are pretty sure that CDUs in various shapes and forms are a long-term element of the thermal chain.” 4) Edge densification: CoolPhase Ceiling + CoolPhase Row (Feb. 3) Vertiv also expanded its thermal portfolio for edge and small IT environments with the: Vertiv CoolPhase Ceiling (launching Q2 2026): ceiling-mounted, 3.5 kW to 28 kW, designed to preserve floor space. Vertiv CoolPhase Row (available now in North America) for row-based cooling up to 30 kW (300 mm width) or 40 kW (600 mm width). Vertiv Director of Edge Thermal Michal Podmaka tied the products directly to AI-driven edge densification and management consistency, saying the new systems “integrate seamlessly

Read More »

Microsoft will invest $80B in AI data centers in fiscal 2025

And Microsoft isn’t the only one that is ramping up its investments into AI-enabled data centers. Rival cloud service providers are all investing in either upgrading or opening new data centers to capture a larger chunk of business from developers and users of large language models (LLMs).  In a report published in October 2024, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated that demand for generative AI would push Microsoft, AWS, Google, Oracle, Meta, and Apple would between them devote $200 billion to capex in 2025, up from $110 billion in 2023. Microsoft is one of the biggest spenders, followed closely by Google and AWS, Bloomberg Intelligence said. Its estimate of Microsoft’s capital spending on AI, at $62.4 billion for calendar 2025, is lower than Smith’s claim that the company will invest $80 billion in the fiscal year to June 30, 2025. Both figures, though, are way higher than Microsoft’s 2020 capital expenditure of “just” $17.6 billion. The majority of the increased spending is tied to cloud services and the expansion of AI infrastructure needed to provide compute capacity for OpenAI workloads. Separately, last October Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said his company planned total capex spend of $75 billion in 2024 and even more in 2025, with much of it going to AWS, its cloud computing division.

Read More »

John Deere unveils more autonomous farm machines to address skill labor shortage

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Self-driving tractors might be the path to self-driving cars. John Deere has revealed a new line of autonomous machines and tech across agriculture, construction and commercial landscaping. The Moline, Illinois-based John Deere has been in business for 187 years, yet it’s been a regular as a non-tech company showing off technology at the big tech trade show in Las Vegas and is back at CES 2025 with more autonomous tractors and other vehicles. This is not something we usually cover, but John Deere has a lot of data that is interesting in the big picture of tech. The message from the company is that there aren’t enough skilled farm laborers to do the work that its customers need. It’s been a challenge for most of the last two decades, said Jahmy Hindman, CTO at John Deere, in a briefing. Much of the tech will come this fall and after that. He noted that the average farmer in the U.S. is over 58 and works 12 to 18 hours a day to grow food for us. And he said the American Farm Bureau Federation estimates there are roughly 2.4 million farm jobs that need to be filled annually; and the agricultural work force continues to shrink. (This is my hint to the anti-immigration crowd). John Deere’s autonomous 9RX Tractor. Farmers can oversee it using an app. While each of these industries experiences their own set of challenges, a commonality across all is skilled labor availability. In construction, about 80% percent of contractors struggle to find skilled labor. And in commercial landscaping, 86% of landscaping business owners can’t find labor to fill open positions, he said. “They have to figure out how to do

Read More »

2025 playbook for enterprise AI success, from agents to evals

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More 2025 is poised to be a pivotal year for enterprise AI. The past year has seen rapid innovation, and this year will see the same. This has made it more critical than ever to revisit your AI strategy to stay competitive and create value for your customers. From scaling AI agents to optimizing costs, here are the five critical areas enterprises should prioritize for their AI strategy this year. 1. Agents: the next generation of automation AI agents are no longer theoretical. In 2025, they’re indispensable tools for enterprises looking to streamline operations and enhance customer interactions. Unlike traditional software, agents powered by large language models (LLMs) can make nuanced decisions, navigate complex multi-step tasks, and integrate seamlessly with tools and APIs. At the start of 2024, agents were not ready for prime time, making frustrating mistakes like hallucinating URLs. They started getting better as frontier large language models themselves improved. “Let me put it this way,” said Sam Witteveen, cofounder of Red Dragon, a company that develops agents for companies, and that recently reviewed the 48 agents it built last year. “Interestingly, the ones that we built at the start of the year, a lot of those worked way better at the end of the year just because the models got better.” Witteveen shared this in the video podcast we filmed to discuss these five big trends in detail. Models are getting better and hallucinating less, and they’re also being trained to do agentic tasks. Another feature that the model providers are researching is a way to use the LLM as a judge, and as models get cheaper (something we’ll cover below), companies can use three or more models to

Read More »

OpenAI’s red teaming innovations define new essentials for security leaders in the AI era

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More OpenAI has taken a more aggressive approach to red teaming than its AI competitors, demonstrating its security teams’ advanced capabilities in two areas: multi-step reinforcement and external red teaming. OpenAI recently released two papers that set a new competitive standard for improving the quality, reliability and safety of AI models in these two techniques and more. The first paper, “OpenAI’s Approach to External Red Teaming for AI Models and Systems,” reports that specialized teams outside the company have proven effective in uncovering vulnerabilities that might otherwise have made it into a released model because in-house testing techniques may have missed them. In the second paper, “Diverse and Effective Red Teaming with Auto-Generated Rewards and Multi-Step Reinforcement Learning,” OpenAI introduces an automated framework that relies on iterative reinforcement learning to generate a broad spectrum of novel, wide-ranging attacks. Going all-in on red teaming pays practical, competitive dividends It’s encouraging to see competitive intensity in red teaming growing among AI companies. When Anthropic released its AI red team guidelines in June of last year, it joined AI providers including Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, and even the U.S.’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which all had released red teaming frameworks. Investing heavily in red teaming yields tangible benefits for security leaders in any organization. OpenAI’s paper on external red teaming provides a detailed analysis of how the company strives to create specialized external teams that include cybersecurity and subject matter experts. The goal is to see if knowledgeable external teams can defeat models’ security perimeters and find gaps in their security, biases and controls that prompt-based testing couldn’t find. What makes OpenAI’s recent papers noteworthy is how well they define using human-in-the-middle

Read More »