The Character Map has been in Windows for as long as I can remember, yet I've never used it. So why is it still in there?

The Epos Adapt E1 earbuds are specially designed for the office, with features that improve the experience on Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and Zoom.

The Epos Adapt E1 earbuds are specially designed for the office, with features that improve the experience on Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and Zoom.

The Epos Adapt E1 earbuds are specially designed for the office, with features that improve the experience on Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and Zoom.

Microsoft has made a series of changes to how Microsoft 365 (M365) support updates are done, and is encouraging enterprises to move to more frequent, or even monthly, software updates. The company currently offers options fo

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works. Microsoft 365 Word gets SharePoint eSignature, now you can ditch third-party signing tools Paul Hill Neowin @ziks_99 · Jun 6, 2025 03:02 EDT Microsoft has just announced that it will be rolling out an extremely convenient feature for Microsoft 365 customers who use Word throughout this year. The Redmond giant said that you’ll now be able to use SharePoint’s native eSignature service directly in Microsoft Word. The new feature allows customers to request electronic signatures without converting the documents to a PDF or leaving the Word interface, significantly speeding up workflows. Microsoft’s integration of eSignatures also allows you to create eSignature templates which will speed up document approvals, eliminate physical signing steps, and help with compliance and security in the Microsoft 365 environment. This change has the potential to significantly improve the quality-of-life for those in work finding themselves adding lots of signatures to documents as they will no longer have to export PDFs from Word and apply the signature outside of Word. It’s also key to point out that this feature is integrated natively and is not an extension. The move is quite clever from Microsoft, if businesses were using third-party tools to sign their documents, they would no longer need to use these as it’s easier to do it in Word. Not only does it reduce reliance on other tools, it also makes Microsoft’s products more competitive against other office suites such as Google Workspace. Streamlined, secure, and compliant The new eSignature feature is tightly integrated into Word. It lets you insert signature fields seamlessly into documents and request other people’s signatures, all while remaining in Word. The eSignature feature can be accessed in Word by going to the Insert ribbon. When you send a signature request to someone from Word, the recipient will get an automatically generated PDF copy of the Word document to sign. The signed PDF will then be kept in the same SharePoint location as the original Word file. To ensure end-to-end security and compliance, the document never leaves the Microsoft 365 trust boundary. For anyone with a repetitive signing process, this integration allows you to turn Word documents into eSignature templates so they can be reused. Another feature that Microsoft has built in is audit trail and notifications. Both the senders and signers will get email notifications throughout the entire signing process. Additionally, you can view the activity history (audit trail) in the signed PDF to check who signed it and when. Finally, Microsoft said that administrators will be able to control how the feature is used in Word throughout the organization. They can decide to enable it for specific users via an Office group policy or limit it to particular SharePoint sites. The company said that SharePoint eSignature also lets admins log activities in the Purview Audit log. A key security measure included by Microsoft, which was mentioned above, was the Microsoft 365 trust boundary. By keeping documents in this boundary, Microsoft ensures that all organizations can use this feature without worry. The inclusion of automatic PDF creation is all a huge benefit to users as it will cut out the step of manual PDF creation. While creating a PDF isn’t complicated, it can be time consuming. The eSignature feature looks like a win-win-win for organizations that rely on digital signatures. Not only does it speed things along and remain secure, but it’s also packed with features like tracking, making it really useful and comprehensive. When and how your organization gets it SharePoint eSignature has started rolling out to Word on the M365 Beta and Current Channels in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia-Pacific. This phase of the rollout is expected to be completed by early July. People in the rest of the world will also be gaining this time-saving feature but it will not reach everyone right away, though Microsoft promises to reach everybody by the end of the year. To use the feature, it will need to be enabled by administrators. If you’re an admin who needs to enable this, just go to the M365 Admin Center and enable SharePoint eSignature, ensuring the Word checkbox is selected. Once the service is enabled, apply the “Allow the use of SharePoint eSignature for Microsoft Word” policy. The policy can be enabled via Intune, Group Policy manager, or the Cloud Policy service for Microsoft 365 Assuming the admins have given permission to use the feature, users will be able to access SharePoint eSignatures on Word Desktop using the Microsoft 365 Current Channel or Beta Channel. The main caveats include that the rollout is phased, so you might not get it right away, and it requires IT admins to enable the feature - in which case, it may never get enabled at all. Overall, this feature stands to benefit users who sign documents a lot as it can save huge amounts of time cumulatively. It’s also good for Microsoft who increase organizations’ dependence on Word. Tags Report a problem with article Follow @NeowinFeed

Email authentication protocols like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC play a critical role in protecting domains from spoofing and phishing. However, when SEGs are introduced into the email path, the interaction with these protocols becomes more complex. Security gateways(SEGs) are a core part of many organizations’ email infrastructure. They act as intermediaries between the public internet and internal mail systems, inspecting, filtering, and routing messages. This blog examines how security gateways handle SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, with real-world examples from popular gateways such as Proofpoint, Mimecast, and Avanan. We’ll also cover best practices for maintaining authentication integrity and avoiding misconfigurations that can compromise email authentication or lead to false DMARC failures. Security gateways often sit at the boundary between your organization and the internet, managing both inbound and outbound email traffic. Their role affects how email authentication protocols behave. An inbound SEG examines emails coming into your organization. It checks SPF, DKIM, and DMARC to determine if the message is authentic and safe before passing it to your internal mail servers. An outbound SEG handles emails sent from your domain. It may modify headers, rewrite envelope addresses, or even apply DKIM signing. All of these can impact SPF,  DKIM, or DMARC validation on the recipient’s side. Understanding how SEGs influence these flows is crucial to maintaining proper authentication and avoiding unexpected DMARC failures. Inbound Handling of SPF, DKIM, and DMARC by Common Security Gateways When an email comes into your organization, your security gateway is the first to inspect it. It checks whether the message is real, trustworthy, and properly authenticated. Let’s look at how different SEGs handle these checks. Avanan (by Check Point) SPF: Avanan verifies whether the sending server is authorized to send emails for the domain by checking the SPF record. DKIM: It verifies if the message was signed by the sending domain and if that signature is valid. DMARC: It uses the results of the SPF and DKIM check to evaluate DMARC. However, final enforcement usually depends on how DMARC is handled by Microsoft 365 or Gmail, as Avanan integrates directly with them. Avanan offers two methods of integration:1. API integration: Avanan connects via APIs, no change in MX, usually Monitor or Detect modes.2. Inline integration: Avanan is placed inline in the mail flow (MX records changed), actively blocking or remediating threats. Proofpoint Email Protection SPF: Proofpoint checks SPF to confirm the sender’s IP is authorized to send on behalf of the domain. You can set custom rules (e.g. treat “softfail” as “fail”). DKIM: It verifies DKIM signatures and shows clear pass/fail results in logs. DMARC: It fully evaluates DMARC by combining SPF and DKIM results with alignment checks. Administrators can configure how to handle messages that fail DMARC, such as rejecting, quarantining, or delivering them. Additionally, Proofpoint allows whitelisting specific senders you trust, even if their emails fail authentication checks. Integration Methods Inline Mode: In this traditional deployment, Proofpoint is positioned directly in the email flow by modifying MX records. Emails are routed through Proofpoint’s infrastructure, allowing it to inspect and filter messages before they reach the recipient’s inbox. This mode provides pre-delivery protection and is commonly used in on-premises or hybrid environments. API-Based (Integrated Cloud Email Security – ICES) Mode: Proofpoint offers API-based integration, particularly with cloud email platforms like Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace. In this mode, Proofpoint connects to the email platform via APIs, enabling it to monitor and remediate threats post-delivery without altering the email flow. This approach allows for rapid deployment and seamless integration with existing cloud email services. Mimecast SPF: Mimecast performs SPF checks to verify whether the sending server is authorized by the domain’s SPF record. Administrators can configure actions for SPF failures, including block, quarantine, permit, or tag with a warning. This gives flexibility in balancing security with business needs. DKIM: It validates DKIM signatures by checking that the message was correctly signed by the sending domain and that the content hasn’t been tampered with. If the signature fails, Mimecast can take actions based on your configured policies. DMARC: It fully evaluates DMARC by combining the results of SPF and DKIM with domain alignment checks. You can choose to honor the sending domain’s DMARC policy (none, quarantine, reject) or apply custom rules, for example, quarantining or tagging messages that fail DMARC regardless of the published policy. This allows more granular control for businesses that want to override external domain policies based on specific contexts. Integration Methods Inline Deployment: Mimecast is typically deployed as a cloud-based secure email gateway. Organizations update their domain’s MX records to point to Mimecast, so all inbound (and optionally outbound) emails pass through it first. This allows Mimecast to inspect, filter, and process emails before delivery, providing robust protection. API Integrations: Mimecast also offers API-based services through its Mimecast API platform, primarily for management, archival, continuity, and threat intelligence purposes. However, API-only email protection is not Mimecast’s core model. Instead, the APIs are used to enhance the inline deployment, not replace it. Barracuda Email Security Gateway SPF: Barracuda checks the sender’s IP against the domain’s published SPF record. If the check fails, you can configure the system to block, quarantine, tag, or allow the message, depending on your policy preferences. DKIM: It validates whether the incoming message includes a valid DKIM signature. The outcome is logged and used to inform further policy decisions or DMARC evaluations. DMARC: It combines SPF and DKIM results, checks for domain alignment, and applies the DMARC policy defined by the sender. Administrators can also choose to override the DMARC policy, allowing messages to pass or be treated differently based on organizational needs (e.g., trusted senders or internal exceptions). Integration Methods Inline mode (more common and straightforward): Barracuda Email Security Gateway is commonly deployed inline by updating your domain’s MX records to point to Barracuda’s cloud or on-premises gateway. This ensures that all inbound emails pass through Barracuda first for filtering and SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation before being delivered to your mail servers. Deployment Behind the Corporate Firewall: Alternatively, Barracuda can be deployed in transparent or bridge mode without modifying MX records. In this setup, the gateway is placed inline at the network level, such as behind a firewall, and intercepts mail traffic transparently. This method is typically used in complex on-premises environments where changing DNS records is not feasible. Cisco Secure Email (formerly IronPort) Cisco Secure Email acts as an inline gateway for inbound email, usually requiring your domain’s MX records to point to the Cisco Email Security Appliance or cloud service. SPF: Cisco Secure Email verifies whether the sending server is authorized in the sender domain’s SPF record. Administrators can set detailed policies on how to handle SPF failures. DKIM: It validates the DKIM signature on incoming emails and logs whether the signature is valid or has failed. DMARC: It evaluates DMARC by combining SPF and DKIM results along with domain alignment checks. Admins can configure specific actions, such as quarantine, reject, or tag, based on different failure scenarios or trusted sender exceptions. Integration methods On-premises Email Security Appliance (ESA): You deploy Cisco’s hardware or virtual appliance inline, updating MX records to route mail through it for filtering. Cisco Cloud Email Security: Cisco offers a cloud-based email security service where MX records are pointed to Cisco’s cloud infrastructure, which filters and processes inbound mail. Cisco Secure Email also offers advanced, rule-based filtering capabilities and integrates with Cisco’s broader threat protection ecosystem, enabling comprehensive inbound email security. Outbound Handling of SPF, DKIM, and DMARC by Common Security Gateways When your organization sends emails, security gateways can play an active role in processing and authenticating those messages. Depending on the configuration, a gateway might rewrite headers, re-sign messages, or route them through different IPs – all actions that can help or hurt the authentication process. Let’s look at how major SEGs handle outbound email flow. Avanan – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Avanan analyzes outbound emails primarily to detect data loss, malware, and policy violations. In API-based integration, emails are sent directly by the original mail server (e.g., Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace), so SPF and DKIM signatures remain intact. Avanan does not alter the message or reroute traffic, which helps maintain full DMARC alignment and domain reputation. Integration Methods 1. API Integration: Connects to Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace via API. No MX changes are needed. Emails are scanned after they are sent, with no modification to SPF, DKIM, or the delivery path.  How it works: Microsoft Graph API or Google Workspace APIs are used to monitor and intervene in outbound emails. Protection level: Despite no MX changes, it can offer inline-like protection, meaning it can block, quarantine, or encrypt emails before they are delivered externally. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Preserves original headers and signatures since mail is sent directly from Microsoft/Google servers. 2. Inline Integration: Requires changing MX records to route email through Avanan. In this mode, Avanan can intercept and inspect outbound emails before delivery. Depending on the configuration, this may affect SPF or DKIM if not properly handled. How it works: Requires adding Avanan’s Protection level: Traditional inline security with full visibility and control, including encryption, DLP, policy enforcement, and advanced threat protection. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: SPF configuration is needed by adding Avanan’s include mechanism to the sending domain’s SPF record. The DKIM record of the original sending source is preserved. For configurations, you can refer to the steps in this blog. Proofpoint – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Proofpoint analyzes outbound emails to detect and prevent data loss (DLP), to identify advanced threats (malware, phishing, BEC) originating from compromised internal accounts, and to ensure compliance. Their API integration provides crucial visibility and powerful remediation capabilities, while their traditional gateway (MX record) deployment delivers true inline, pre-delivery blocking for outbound traffic. Integration methods 1. API Integration: No MX record changes are required for this deployment method. Integration is done with Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace. How it works: Through its API integration, Proofpoint gains deep visibility into outbound emails and provides layered security and response features, including: Detect and alert: Identifies sensitive content (Data Loss Prevention violations), malicious attachments, or suspicious links in outbound emails. Post-delivery remediation (TRAP): A key capability of the API model is Threat Response Auto-Pull (TRAP), which enables Proofpoint to automatically recall, quarantine, or delete emails after delivery. This is particularly useful for internally sent messages or those forwarded to other users. Enhanced visibility: Aggregates message metadata and logs into Proofpoint’s threat intelligence platform, giving security teams a centralized view of outbound risks and user behavior. Protection level: API-based integration provides strong post-delivery detection and response, as well as visibility into DLP incidents and suspicious behavior.  SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Proofpoint does not alter SPF, DKIM, or DMARC because emails are sent directly through Microsoft or Google servers. Since Proofpoint’s servers are not involved in the actual sending process, the original authentication headers remain intact. 2. Gateway Integration (MX Record/Smart Host): This method requires updating MX records or routing outbound mail through Proofpoint via a smart host. How it works: Proofpoint acts as an inline gateway, inspecting emails before delivery. Inbound mail is filtered via MX changes; outbound mail is relayed through Proofpoint’s servers. Threat and DLP filtering: Scans outbound messages for sensitive content, malware, and policy violations. Real-time enforcement: Blocks, encrypts, or quarantines emails before they’re delivered. Policy controls: Applies rules based on content, recipient, or behavior. Protection level: Provides strong, real-time protection for outbound traffic with pre-delivery enforcement, DLP, and encryption. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Proofpoint becomes the sending server: SPF: You need to configure ProofPoint’s SPF. DKIM: Can sign messages; requires DKIM setup. DMARC: DMARC passes if SPF and DKIM are set up properly. Please refer to this article to configure SPF and DKIM for ProofPoint. Mimecast – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Mimecast inspects outbound emails to prevent data loss (DLP), detect internal threats such as malware and impersonation, and ensure regulatory compliance. It primarily functions as a Secure Email Gateway (SEG), meaning it sits directly in the outbound email flow. While Mimecast offers APIs, its core outbound protection is built around this inline gateway model. Integration Methods 1. Gateway Integration (MX Record change required) This is Mimecast’s primary method for outbound email protection. Organizations route their outbound traffic through Mimecast by configuring their email server (e.g., Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, etc.) to use Mimecast as a smart host. This enables Mimecast to inspect and enforce policies on all outgoing emails in real time. How it works: Updating outbound routing in your email system (smart host settings), or Using Mimecast SMTP relay to direct messages through their infrastructure. Mimecast then scans, filters, and applies policies before the email reaches the final recipient. Protection level: Advanced DLP: Identifies and prevents sensitive data leaks. Impersonation and Threat Protection: Blocks malware, phishing, and abuse from compromised internal accounts. Email Encryption and Secure Messaging: Applies encryption policies or routes messages via secure portals. Regulatory Compliance: Enforces outbound compliance rules based on content, recipient, or metadata. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: SPF: Your SPF record must include Mimecast’s SPF mechanism based on your region to avoid SPF failures. DKIM: A new DKIM record should be configured to make sure your emails are DKIM signed when routing through Mimecast. DMARC: With correct SPF and DKIM setup, Mimecast ensures DMARC alignment, maintaining your domain’s sending reputation. Please refer to the steps in this detailed article to set up SPF and DKIM for Mimecast. 2. API Integration (Complementary to Gateway) Mimecast’s APIs complement the main gateway by providing automation, reporting, and management tools rather than handling live outbound mail flow. They allow you to manage policies, export logs, search archived emails, and sync users. APIs enhance visibility and operational tasks but do not provide real-time filtering or blocking of outbound messages. Since APIs don’t process live mail, they have no direct effect on SPF, DKIM, or DMARC; those depend on your gateway (smart host) setup. Barracuda – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Barracuda analyzes outbound emails to prevent data loss (DLP), block malware, stop phishing/impersonation attempts from compromised internal accounts, and ensure compliance. Barracuda offers flexible deployment options, including both traditional gateway (MX record) and API-based integrations. While both contribute to outbound security, their roles are distinct. Integration Methods 1. Gateway Integration (MX Record / Smart Host) — Primary Inline Security How it works: All outbound emails pass through Barracuda’s security stack for real-time inspection, threat blocking, and policy enforcement before delivery. Protection level: Comprehensive DLP (blocking, encrypting, or quarantining sensitive content)  Outbound spam and virus filtering  Enforcement of compliance and content policies This approach offers a high level of control and immediate threat mitigation on outbound mail flow. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: SPF: Update SPF records to include Barracuda’s sending IPs or SPF include mechanism. DKIM: Currently, no explicit setup is needed; DKIM of the main sending source is preserved. Refer to this article for more comprehensive guidance on Barracuda SEG configuration. 2. API Integration (Complementary & Advanced Threat Focus) How it works: The API accesses cloud email environments to analyze historical and real-time data, learning normal communication patterns to detect anomalies in outbound emails. It also supports post-delivery remediation, enabling the removal of malicious emails from internal mailboxes after sending. Protection level: Advanced AI-driven detection and near real-time blocking of outbound threats, plus strong post-delivery cleanup capabilities. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Since mail is sent directly by the original mail server (e.g., Microsoft 365), SPF and DKIM signatures remain intact, preserving DMARC alignment and domain reputation. Cisco Secure Email (formerly IronPort) – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Cisco Secure Email protects outbound email by preventing data loss (DLP), blocking spam and malware from internal accounts, stopping business email compromise (BEC) and impersonation attacks, and ensuring compliance. Cisco provides both traditional gateway appliances/cloud gateways and modern API-based solutions for layered outbound security. Integration Methods 1. Gateway Integration (MX Record / Smart Host) – Cisco Secure Email Gateway (ESA) How it works: Organizations update MX records to route mail through the Cisco Secure Email Gateway or configure their mail server (e.g., Microsoft 365, Exchange) to smart host outbound email via the gateway. All outbound mail is inspected and policies enforced before delivery. Protection level: Granular DLP (blocking, encrypting, quarantining sensitive content) Outbound spam and malware filtering to protect IP reputation Email encryption for sensitive outbound messages Comprehensive content and attachment policy enforcement SPF: Check this article for comprehensive guidance on Cisco SPF settings. DKIM: Refer to this article for detailed guidance on Cisco DKIM settings. 2. API Integration – Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense How it works: Integrates directly via API with Microsoft 365 (and potentially Google Workspace), continuously monitoring email metadata, content, and user behavior across inbound, outbound, and internal messages. Leverages Cisco’s threat intelligence and AI to detect anomalous outbound activity linked to BEC, account takeover, and phishing. Post-Delivery Remediation: Automates the removal or quarantine of malicious or policy-violating emails from mailboxes even after sending. Protection level: Advanced, AI-driven detection of sophisticated outbound threats with real-time monitoring and automated remediation. Complements gateway filtering by adding cloud-native visibility and swift post-send action. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Since emails are sent directly by the original mail server, SPF and DKIM signatures remain intact, preserving DMARC alignment and domain reputation. If you have any questions or need assistance, feel free to reach out to EasyDMARC technical support.

One of the key use cases for generative AI involves answering questions over private datasets, with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as the go-to framework. As new RAG techniques emerge, there’s a growing need to benchmark their performance across diverse datasets and metrics.  To meet this need, we’re introducing BenchmarkQED, a new suite of tools that automates RAG benchmarking at scale, available on GitHub (opens in new tab). It includes components for query generation, evaluation, and dataset preparation, each designed to support rigorous, reproducible testing.   BenchmarkQED complements the RAG methods in our open-source GraphRAG library, enabling users to run a GraphRAG-style evaluation across models, metrics, and datasets. GraphRAG uses a large language model (LLM) to generate and summarize entity-based knowledge graphs, producing more comprehensive and diverse answers than standard RAG for large-scale tasks.  In this post, we walk through the core components of BenchmarkQED that contribute to the overall benchmarking process. We also share some of the latest benchmark results comparing our LazyGraphRAG system to competing methods, including a vector-based RAG with a 1M-token context window, where the leading LazyGraphRAG configuration showed significant win rates across all combinations of quality metrics and query classes. In the paper, we distinguish between local queries, where answers are found in a small number of text regions, and sometimes even a single region, and global queries, which require reasoning over large portions of or even the entire dataset.  Conventional vector-based RAG excels at local queries because the regions containing the answer to the query resemble the query itself and can be retrieved as the nearest neighbor in the vector space of text embeddings. However, it struggles with global questions, such as, “What are the main themes of the dataset?” which require understanding dataset qualities not explicitly stated in the text.   AutoQ: Automated query synthesis This limitation motivated the development of GraphRAG a system designed to answer global queries. GraphRAG’s evaluation requirements subsequently led to the creation of AutoQ, a method for synthesizing these global queries for any dataset. AutoQ extends this approach by generating synthetic queries across the spectrum of queries, from local to global. It defines four distinct classes based on the source and scope of the query (Figure 1, top) forming a logical progression along the spectrum (Figure 1, bottom). Figure 1. Construction of a 2×2 design space for synthetic query generation with AutoQ, showing how the four resulting query classes map onto the local-global query spectrum.  AutoQ can be configured to generate any number and distribution of synthetic queries along these classes, enabling consistent benchmarking across datasets without requiring user customization. Figure 2 shows the synthesis process and sample queries from each class, using an AP News dataset. Figure 2. Synthesis process and example query for each of the four AutoQ query classes.  About Microsoft Research Advancing science and technology to benefit humanity View our story Opens in a new tab AutoE: Automated evaluation framework  Our evaluation of GraphRAG focused on analyzing key qualities of answers to global questions. The following qualities were used for the current evaluation: Comprehensiveness: Does the answer address all relevant aspects of the question?  Diversity: Does it present varied perspectives or insights?  Empowerment: Does it help the reader understand and make informed judgments?  Relevance: Does it address what the question is specifically asking?   The AutoE component scales evaluation of these qualities using the LLM-as-a-Judge method. It presents pairs of answers to an LLM, along with the query and target metric, in counterbalanced order. The model determines whether the first answer wins, loses, or ties with the second. Over a set of queries, whether from AutoQ or elsewhere, this produces win rates between competing methods. When ground truth is available, AutoE can also score answers on correctness, completeness, and related metrics. An illustrative evaluation is shown in Figure 3. Using a dataset of 1,397 AP News articles on health and healthcare, AutoQ generated 50 queries per class (200 total). AutoE then compared LazyGraphRAG to a competing RAG method, running six trials per query across four metrics, using GPT-4.1 as a judge. These trial-level results were aggregated using metric-based win rates, where each trial is scored 1 for a win, 0.5 for a tie, and 0 for a loss, and then averaged to calculate the overall win rate for each RAG method. Figure 3. Win rates of four LazyGraphRAG (LGR) configurations across methods, broken down by the AutoQ query class and averaged across AutoE’s four metrics: comprehensiveness, diversity, empowerment, and relevance. LazyGraphRAG outperforms comparison conditions where the bar is above 50%. The four LazyGraphRAG conditions (LGR_b200_c200, LGR_b50_c200, LGR_b50_c600, LGR_b200_c200_mini) differ by query budget (b50, b200) and chunk size (c200, c600). All used GPT-4o mini for relevance tests and GPT-4o for query expansion (to five subqueries) and answer generation, except for LGR_b200_c200_mini, which used GPT-4o mini throughout. Comparison systems were GraphRAG (Local, Global, and Drift Search), Vector RAG with 8k- and 120k-token windows, and three published methods: LightRAG (opens in new tab), RAPTOR (opens in new tab), and TREX (opens in new tab). All methods were limited to the same 8k tokens for answer generation. GraphRAG Global Search used level 2 of the community hierarchy. LazyGraphRAG outperformed every comparison condition using the same generative model (GPT-4o), winning all 96 comparisons, with all but one reaching statistical significance. The best overall performance came from the larger budget, smaller chunk size configuration (LGR_b200_c200). For DataLocal queries, the smaller budget (LGR_b50_c200) performed slightly better, likely because fewer chunks were relevant. For ActivityLocal queries, the larger chunk size (LGR_b50_c600) had a slight edge, likely because longer chunks provide a more coherent context. Competing methods performed relatively better on the query classes for which they were designed: GraphRAG Global for global queries, Vector RAG for local queries, and GraphRAG Drift Search, which combines both strategies, posed the strongest challenge overall. Increasing Vector RAG’s context window from 8k to 120k tokens did not improve its performance compared to LazyGraphRAG. This raised the question of how LazyGraphRAG would perform against Vector RAG with 1-million token context window containing most of the dataset. Figure 4 shows the follow-up experiment comparing LazyGraphRAG to Vector RAG using GPT-4.1 that enabled this comparison. Even against the 1M-token window, LazyGraphRAG achieved higher win rates across all comparisons, failing to reach significance only for the relevance of answers to DataLocal queries. These queries tend to benefit most from Vector RAG’s ranking of directly relevant chunks, making it hard for LazyGraphRAG to generate answers that have greater relevance to the query, even though these answers may be dramatically more comprehensive, diverse, and empowering overall. Figure 4. Win rates of LazyGraphRAG (LGR) over Vector RAG across different context window sizes, broken down by the four AutoQ query classes and four AutoE metrics: comprehensiveness, diversity, empowerment, and relevance. Bars above 50% indicate that LazyGraphRAG outperformed the comparison condition.  AutoD: Automated data sampling and summarization Text datasets have an underlying topical structure, but the depth, breadth, and connectivity of that structure can vary widely. This variability makes it difficult to evaluate RAG systems consistently, as results may reflect the idiosyncrasies of the dataset rather than the system’s general capabilities. The AutoD component addresses this by sampling datasets to meet a target specification, defined by the number of topic clusters (breadth) and the number of samples per cluster (depth). This creates consistency across datasets, enabling more meaningful comparisons, as structurally aligned datasets lead to comparable AutoQ queries, which in turn support consistent AutoE evaluations. AutoD also includes tools for summarizing input or output datasets in a way that reflects their topical coverage. These summaries play an important role in the AutoQ query synthesis process, but they can also be used more broadly, such as in prompts where context space is limited. Since the release of the GraphRAG paper, we’ve received many requests to share the dataset of the Behind the Tech (opens in new tab) podcast transcripts we used in our evaluation. An updated version of this dataset is now available in the BenchmarkQED repository (opens in new tab), alongside the AP News dataset containing 1,397 health-related articles, licensed for open release.   We hope these datasets, together with the BenchmarkQED tools (opens in new tab), help accelerate benchmark-driven development of RAG systems and AI question-answering. We invite the community to try them on GitHub (opens in new tab).  Opens in a new tab

Geoff Keighley has promised a record-breaking number of publishers at Summer Game Fest this year, so we’ve rounded up what we think we’ll be playing in the coming monthsTech23:00, 05 Jun 2025We're so ready to step into Samus' boots againE3 might be long gone, but Summer Game Fest has replaced it. While Nintendo Switch 2 has just launched, and Sony has held its own State of Play event, tonight’s show is about as unpredictable as you can get. So, naturally, we’re trying to predict what we’ll be seeing.With everyone from PlayStation to SEGA, Xbox and even Nintendo making an appearance, we’re expecting big things from the showcase, which will be packed with titles for 2025 and beyond.‌While some are known quantities, like Borderlands 4, Little Nightmares 3, and the upcoming Bond game from Hitman developer IO Interactive, we’re still expecting plenty of surprises. Here’s everything we’re predicting for Summer Game Fest 2025.‌There are plenty of big namesWith Geoff Keighley’s events in both the Summer and December being key fixtures on the gaming events calendar, he’s able to pull off plenty of surprises. The Game Awards 2023 revealed Monster Hunter Wilds, while the following year showcased the first gameplay of Slay The Spire 2 and Split Fiction, as well as Elden Ring Nightreign and Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet.As for Summer Game Fest itself, the show last year featured Dragon Ball: Sparking Zero, Kingdom Come: Deliverance II and Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2 - all games which were released since then.Article continues belowWe’ve heard rumblings that Capcom’s Pragmata, revealed alongside the PS5 in June 2020, could be shown at the event following an indefinite delay in 2023. It’s just as well, since we have no idea what the game really is yet.We’re also very curious about what Nintendo could show. The Switch 2 is out, but only as of yesterday, so we’d expect a sizzle reel to show what the console is capable of, as well as another look at Donkey Kong Bananza.‌PlayStation is probably easier to predict since the company is launching Hideo Kojima’s Death Stranding 2: On The Beach in just a few short weeks, and Geoff Keighley will likely find some way of getting the man himself on stage.SEGA has plenty to show, too. Sonic Racing CrossWorlds is still due this year, while the company has an ambitious plan to resurrect classic titles starting with Shinobi: Art of Vengeance and leading into Streets of Rage and Crazy Taxi.We tipped a Final Fantasy 7 Remake Part 3 announcement for Sony’s State of Play, but we’re still waiting for more news on Kingdom Hearts 4.‌Pearl Abyss is still aiming to launch Crimson Desert this year (supposedly), but we’re without a release date as yet, while the company is also working on its colourful DokeV which has been MIA for years at this point.While Microsoft is expected to appear, the company has its own showcase just two days later with a big focus on The Outer Worlds 2. As a result, we might just get a sneak peek at this year’s Call of Duty with more to come on Sunday.With Bungie’s Marathon hit by plagiarism accusations, Embark Studios has a great chance to get players onto Arc Raiders as an alternative. Speaking of Bungie, expect a gameplay trailer for Destiny 2: Edge of Fate.‌Elden Ring is coming to Switch 2(Image: FromSoftware, Inc.)Call us crazy, but we want a bunch of Switch 2 news. We want to see From Software’s Duskbloods, get a release date for Elden Ring: Tarnished Edition, and maybe even a Metroid Prime 4 release date from Nintendo itself.Given the history of Monster Hunter on portable consoles, we’ve got everything crossed for the series to come to Switch 2, but coming off of the excellent Wilds, it’s perhaps unlikely.‌Naturally, we’ve always got our fingers crossed that we’ll see Silksong, but rumours have suggested that Team Cherry’s long-awaited Hollow Knight follow-up would be announced at Microsoft’s event if at all.As we said in our State of Play predictions, we’re also expecting to hear more about Resident Evil 9 by the end of this week, in some way, shape, or form.With The Division 2 getting what’s likely its final DLC recently, here’s hoping for The Division 3, which has been rumoured for a while. Or, maybe Ubisoft will finally share something about the Splinter Cell title it has in development.Article continues belowDid we get any correct? Find out with us, with the show kicking off at 10PM BST on Friday night.For the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.‌‌‌

Key Takeaways The European Commission will introduce the new International Digital Strategy that will focus on tech collaboration with the US and other countries. This is in contradiction to the growing pressure in Europe that calls for tech sovereignty and reducing tech dependence on the US. Low venture capital funding and a diverse regulatory landscape have been major challenges for tech innovation in Europe. Europe is seeing an increasing push to establish technological sovereignty and reduce the region’s reliance on US technology. However, there’s always been an undertone of acceptance that the EU is years behind the US when it comes to technological innovation and advancements. Now, the European Commission is planning to acknowledge this publicly. The EC will introduce a new International Digital Strategy, which will focus on collaboration with the United States and other tech-forward countries, such as Japan, South Korea, and India. The lawmakers believe that “decoupling” from the West is unrealistic and will instead push Europe further back in the technological race. Europe’s Call for Tech Sovereignty Several prominent political leaders and lawmakers have advocated for European sovereignty over technology and artificial intelligence.  For instance, Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, said in a speech in 2024 that Europe’s strategic autonomy is a conscious choice to end the region’s dependence on others. In an earlier speech, he also said that if Europe fails to build champions in areas such as digital and artificial intelligence, its choices will be dictated by others.  Similarly, Thierry Breton, the former EU Commissioner for Internal Markets, said that digital spending in the EU will breach the 20% target, underlining the importance of investing in European tech sovereignty. He focused on Europe’s declining market share in the semiconductor industry and called for the development of groundbreaking European tech. The Eurostack movement in the EU has also been gaining a lot of traction and support from various think tanks, academic researchers, and industry voices. Eurostack staff calls for the development of an indigenous infrastructure stack in the European region, including cloud, AI, semiconductors, digital services, and data centers. The main aim is to reduce Europe’s dependence on Chinese and US technology. This growing concern among EU well-wishers is quite understandable. Excessive reliance on the United States puts the US (meaning Donald Trump) in a controlling position, where he can arm-twist the European Union in matters of trade and even politics.  We have already seen an example of this during the tariff war, where Trump imposed a 25% tariff on automobiles (and their parts) and steel and aluminum products imported from the EU. Also, the fact that Google, Microsoft, and Amazon account for around 69% of the cloud market in the EU is quite concerning, too. Europe Wakes Up to Reality Despite positive speeches and statements by people in power in the EU, the fact remains that Europe is still lagging behind the United States. Bulgarian lawmaker Eva Maydell said that Europe should “sober up” and accept that the train has left the station. Dan Nechita, the current EU director for the Transatlantic Policy Network, said that it’s not the right time to be politically absolute and say that “we are going to do everything in Europe.” EU tech chief Virkkunen has been working hard to bring home the support of influential tech lobbies and emphasized the need to continue working with the United States. To put it in a nutshell, the European Commission is ready to accept the fact that the damage is done, and now Europe needs to play second fiddle and forge strategic partnerships with key technological leaders (primarily in the US) to stay alive in the race. Lack of Investments and the EU’s Regulation-First Approach One of the major reasons behind the European Union’s sluggish tech development is the lack of venture capital investments in the region. As per an IMF post, EU VC funds raised around $130B between 2013 and 2022. During the same time, the US raised $924B.  Similarly, annual VC investments in the EU are only 0.2% of the GDP when compared to 0.7% in the US. Currently, the United States accounts for a massive 52% of the global VC funds, whereas the EU holds just 5%.  Lack of investments has forced European startups to look elsewhere, especially the United States, for funding and support. One of the major reasons for such low venture capital interest in Europe is its diversity. Each of the 27 countries in the EU has its own regulatory and legal challenges, which make it difficult for multinational corporations to operate in the region.  Plus, the EU has adopted a regulation-first approach, which is very different from the United States. Of course, this approach has its own merits, but it has surely slowed down the speed of technological investments in the region.  For instance, the GDPR puts a truckload of regulatory and moral responsibility on companies to protect user data. Similarly, the AI Act focuses on the more ethical development of artificial intelligence that’s aligned with human values and refrains companies from exploiting public data. Sure, all of these are positive tech regulations important to protect the long-term sovereignty of the public at large. Even global tech advocates have praised the EU’s efforts for the development of safe and ethical technologies. However, we cannot ignore the fact that this has come at the cost of sluggish tech investments and overall growth. With its back against the wall, Europe needs to reassess its strengths and focus on areas such as open-source technologies, such as France’s La Suite numérique, and government-backed technological initiatives to have a say in the upcoming artificial intelligence and semiconductor race. Krishi is a seasoned tech journalist with over four years of experience writing about PC hardware, consumer technology, and artificial intelligence.  Clarity and accessibility are at the core of Krishi’s writing style. He believes technology writing should empower readers—not confuse them—and he’s committed to ensuring his content is always easy to understand without sacrificing accuracy or depth. Over the years, Krishi has contributed to some of the most reputable names in the industry, including Techopedia, TechRadar, and Tom’s Guide. A man of many talents, Krishi has also proven his mettle as a crypto writer, tackling complex topics with both ease and zeal. His work spans various formats—from in-depth explainers and news coverage to feature pieces and buying guides.  Behind the scenes, Krishi operates from a dual-monitor setup (including a 29-inch LG UltraWide) that’s always buzzing with news feeds, technical documentation, and research notes, as well as the occasional gaming sessions that keep him fresh.  Krishi thrives on staying current, always ready to dive into the latest announcements, industry shifts, and their far-reaching impacts.  When he's not deep into research on the latest PC hardware news, Krishi would love to chat with you about day trading and the financial markets—oh! And cricket, as well. View all articles by Krishi Chowdhary Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors.