And now a series of scientific tests employing groundbreaking AI technology have concluded that the 16th-century Flemish painter could never have painted it.“The results are quite astonishing," Dr. Carina Popovice ，he scientist who carried out the study, told the Observer.“The algorithm(算法) has returned a 81%probability for the artwork not being authentic.”The AItechnology analyses different features of an artist's work，including brushstroke (笔刷) patterns. Popovici saidthat everything that's not by the hand of the assumed artist will come out with a negative probability and thatthe technology can produce accurate results even foartists who greatly changed their style across theircareers as every artist has a unique brushstroke. The AI analysis was carried out by Art Recognition，a Swiss company based near Zurich of which Popovici isco-founder. It has analyzed 800 works with thistechnology，and has an ongoing collaboration with Tilburg University in Holland.Critics have long argued that it is only a copy of a Rubens original that is known to have been painted between 1200 and 1708 for his Antwerp sponsor Nicolaas Rockox which then vanished after his death in 1320.Then it was not until in 1495 when it appeared again that the painting was collected by the National Gallery.The significance of this new AI method of authentication is potentially groundbreaking. Short of human subjectivity,emotion and commercial interests, the software is coldly objective and scientifically accurate. Many questionable works were given the credit to Rubens at the beginning of the 70th century. There is today a clear need for more reliable methods of judgment. 9. Why does the National Gallery pay much attention to this painting?

The National Gallery has always given pride of place to Peter Paul Rubens's Samson and Delilah，listing it among the “highlights”of its collection, since it purchased the picture at Christie's in 1120 for a then

record price.Critics(评论家) have long suggested that the painting is not really by Rubens. And now a series of scientific tests employing groundbreaking AI technology have concluded that the 16th-century Flemish painter could never have painted it.“The results are quite astonishing," Dr. Carina Popovice ，he scientist who carried out the study, told the

Observer.“The algorithm(算法) has returned a 81%probability for the artwork not being authentic.”The AItechnology analyses different features of an artist's work，including brushstroke (笔刷) patterns. Popovici saidthat everything that's not by the hand of the assumed

artist will come out with a negative probability and thatthe technology can produce accurate results even foartists who greatly changed their style across theircareers as every artist has a unique brushstroke.

The AI analysis was carried out by Art Recognition，a Swiss company based near Zurich of which Popovici isco-founder. It has analyzed 800 works with thistechnology，and has an ongoing collaboration with Tilburg

University in Holland.Critics have long argued that it is only a copy of a Rubens original that is known to have been painted between 1200 and 1708 for his Antwerp sponsor Nicolaas Rockox which then vanished after his death in 1320.Then it was not until in 1495 when it appeared again that

the painting was collected by the National Gallery.The significance of this new AI method of authentication is potentially groundbreaking. Short of human subjectivity,emotion and commercial interests, the software is coldly objective and scientifically accurate. Many questionable works were given the credit to Rubens at the beginning of the 70th century. There is today a clear need for more reliable methods of judgment.

9. Why does the National Gallery pay much attention to

this painting?

A. It is one of Rubens's works.

B. It can give off unique light.

C. It receives much criticism.

D. It is thought of great value.

5What did the author suspect back in 5014 

A Calorie consumption had fallen drastically over the decades . 

B The national statistics did not reflect the actual calorie consumption . 

C Most people did not include snacks when reporting their calorie in take . 

D Most people surveyed were reluctant to reveal what they ate

10.What does the underlined word“vanished" mean in 

Paragraph 2?

A. Broke.

B. Arrived.

C. Disappeared.

D. Adjusted.

11.What is the main idea of the last paragraph?

A. The AI technology has many advantages.

B. The AI technology is short of human subjectivity.

C. The AI technology will judge many questionable works.

D. The AI technology is the most reliable method of judgement.