标签：#Mac

This is a Plain English Papers summary of a research paper called RA-Bench Reveals Why Crisis-Video Deepfake Detectors Fail Across Generators and Social Media . If you like these kinds of analyses, you can find more AI and machine-learning research on AIModels.fyi or follow us on Twitter . The crisis detection problem we've been getting wrong Video synthesis has reached an inflection point. Recent generators can fabricate realistic depictions of wars, natural disasters, infrastructure failures, and public emergencies so convincingly that they fool both people and current detection systems. The threat isn't hypothetical anymore. A fabricated video of a nuclear plant explosion, a hospital collapse during an earthquake, or a terrorist attack could trigger panic, military response, or severe economic disruption within hours. Yet here's the troubling part: we don't actually know if our best detection tools can handle these high-stakes scenarios in the wild. Researchers have built impressive deepfake detectors, trained them on standard benchmarks, and measured their performance. But those benchmarks test detectors against generic synthetic videos, not against the specific threat that actually matters: AI-generated crisis footage designed to fool people about real things that happened. It's like training a border guard to spot counterfeit passports in a lab with perfect lighting and a magnifying glass, then sending them to a busy airport where they have to make decisions in three seconds. The guard's failure has nothing to do with their skill. The problem is that the testing environment was completely divorced from the real scenario.... Continue reading the full paper summary on AIModels.fyi →

This is a Plain English Papers summary of a research paper called Macaron-V1: Continual Learning with Self-Improvement and Mixture-of-LoRA Adapters . If you like these kinds of analyses, you can find more research on AIModels.fyi or follow us on Twitter . The problem with frozen models Most AI systems today follow a familiar pattern: train, evaluate, deploy, and then stop. The model is locked at that moment, treated as a finished product rather than a living system. But the real world immediately begins to diverge from training data. Users interact with the system in ways the training process never anticipated. New domains emerge. Preferences shift. The model that seemed smart on test day becomes gradually less relevant over time. This frozen-in-place approach isn't accidental. It reflects how machine learning has been practiced for decades. Retraining is expensive. Deploying new versions carries risk. The infrastructure to continuously improve systems in production barely exists. So instead, teams ship a model and move on, accepting that it will decay slowly but inevitably. Macaron-V1 asks a different question: what if AI systems could continuously improve themselves through real-world experience, learning from the billions of interactions that happen after deployment? Not in theory, but actually, in production, with users. The answer isn't magic. It requires two architectural shifts. First, treat deployment as the beginning of a learning process, not the end of one. Build versioning, evaluation contracts, and feedback loops directly into the system. Second, stop assuming you need to retrain your entire model. Instead, freeze a stable base and compose lightweight specialist adapters around it, allowing the system to grow in capability without losing its foundation. Rethinking deployment as a continuous learning opportunity The insight here is architectural. Instead of viewing the deployed model as the final form, Macaron-V1 treats it as the first link in an infinit

This is a Plain English Papers summary of a research paper called BDH-CQ Uses Recurrent Latent Reasoning to Cut ARC-AGI Inference Costs . If you like these kinds of analyses, you can find more research on AIModels.fyi or follow us on Twitter . The cost-accuracy trap in visual reasoning Large language models are fundamentally mismatched for visual reasoning tasks. They're forced to describe every thought out loud, generating token after token to explain their logic. This verbosity taxes compute budgets, yet paradoxically doesn't improve performance. Ask a language model to solve an ARC-AGI puzzle (a visual reasoning benchmark designed to test abstract thinking), and it either struggles despite the verbosity or succeeds expensively. The root problem runs deeper than just inference cost: the model learns from demonstrations by parsing them as language tokens, which is an indirect and inefficient way to absorb a visual pattern. The efficiency frontier has been unforgiving. If you want cheap inference, you sacrifice accuracy. If you want accuracy, you sacrifice cost. Every model on the leaderboard until recently clustered into one of two camps, and no one had found a path that broke the tradeoff. BDH-CQ challenges this assumption by proposing something radical: reasoning doesn't need to be visible to work. The model absorbs demonstrations silently into its internal memory state, then solves problems through private iteration in hidden layers, without generating a single token of intermediate reasoning. A 150-parameter variant achieves 29.5% pass@2 on the ARC-AGI-1 benchmark at a computed cost of just $0.0007 per task, puncturing through the previous Pareto frontier and establishing a new state of the art in cost efficiency. Learning through hidden states The core insight is deceptively simple: a model's reasoning process doesn't need to match human communication. When you learn a new skill from examples, you don't narrate every observation. You absorb patterns directly i

This is a Plain English Papers summary of a research paper called How Cross-Model Compatibility Lets Attackers Extract Proprietary LLM Reasoning Traces . If you like these kinds of analyses, you can find more research on AIModels.fyi or follow us on Twitter . The illusion of safety Major AI companies now show users their models' step-by-step reasoning as a feature. OpenAI offers it through o1, Anthropic through extended thinking, Google through its reasoning-focused variants. But this reasoning is a double-edged sword. It's intellectually valuable to share, showing users why a model reached a conclusion. But it's also intellectually valuable to steal. Competitors want to understand how frontier models think. Researchers want to study their reasoning patterns. Attackers want to extract proprietary algorithms. So the companies made a choice: hide the reasoning from users by encrypting it. The idea sounds straightforward enough. Return the reasoning to the user's device in an encrypted, unreadable form. The user can't see it, competitors can't see it, but they can pass it back to the server in future requests if they need continuity with previous reasoning. The server alone holds the decryption keys. Problem solved. Except it wasn't. Researchers discovered that this encryption doesn't actually hide reasoning. It just makes it look hidden. The encrypted blocks are designed to work everywhere within a company's ecosystem, across different sessions and different models. That universal compatibility is a feature for convenience. But it's also an architectural vulnerability that anyone can exploit. The architectural gamble To understand where this went wrong, you need to see how the system actually works. When a user sends a request to a frontier model like GPT-4, the model internally generates a reasoning trace, the raw thought process behind its answer. Instead of returning this reasoning in plaintext, the company encrypts it on the server before sending it to the client.

By the end of the day my eyes burn. The screen goes fuzzy for a second when I look up, focusing on something across the room takes longer than it should, and a dull headache creeps in around the temples. I used to write this off as "just tired." Turns out it has a name and a fairly simple mechanism behind it. What computer vision syndrome actually is Computer vision syndrome — digital eye strain, if you prefer the plainer name — isn't a diagnosis in the sense of "something broke." It's a cluster of symptoms that shows up after prolonged close-range screen work: dryness and burning, blurred focus when you shift your gaze to something far away, light sensitivity, headaches, and often neck and shoulder pain, because we unconsciously lean toward the screen and freeze in one position for hours. Two things happen at once. First, your eyes hold focus on a near object for a long stretch — the ciliary muscle, which controls how the lens changes shape for near vision, stays tensed the whole time instead of periodically relaxing the way it would if your gaze wandered farther away now and then. Second, you blink noticeably less often while concentrating, so the tear film that keeps your eyes moist doesn't get replenished as frequently — hence the dryness. Why a screen and not a book Reading a book for hours also holds your focus at close range, but it strains your eyes less, and there's a reason for that. A screen emits light rather than reflecting it the way paper does, which creates more contrast against the room's ambient lighting, especially if the room is dimmer than the display. Glare from windows and lamps forces you to squint and refocus. And a laptop or phone tends to sit closer to your face than a book or a printed document would, simply because the screen is smaller. There's also the nature of the work itself. Reading a book is a steady stream; working with software is a constant series of micro-refocuses between windows, tabs, and notifications. Your eyes keep re-ad

after 3 months and $800 burned... Unbounded Labs is proud to introduce Bart, our vintage LLM: 2.82B parameters trained from scratch on 20.1B tokens of English written before 1931. You can talk to it right now! Demo: https://www.unboundedlab.com/chat/bartholomew Article: https://www.unboundedlab.com/blog/bartholomew Huggingface: https://huggingface.co/jbduran/bartholomew-sft Why even make a vintage llm? As proposed by Demis Hassabis, could LLMs reach the same conclusions that the great scientists of the past did? While General Relativity was out of budget, we believe that advancing this field targets the crux of AI research. Are these models capable of original ideas, or are they just spitting out the next token? The article is our full account, covering where the corpus came from and how we cleaned it, the benchmarks we had to build because none existed, every ablation, the training runs, the post-training, and the mistakes we made along the way. "What I cannot create, I do not understand" is a quote I love from Richard Feynman. Building Bart was our attempt to actually understand LLMs rather than read about them. What we are proudest of: - Best vintage base model at its scale on Vintage CORE, ahead of GPT-1900 on a smaller token budget - Cleaned one of the largest vintage datasets, Harvard's Institutional Books (242B->23B tokens) - Created Vintage CORE, the first suite of 20 benchmarks made for vintage llms - Ran 10 hours of autonomous research on one H100: 100 experiments, 26 improvements found - Released the largest vintage SFT dataset we know of: 416k graded question and answer pairs, grounded in pre-1930s text - Trained the final model in 5 days on an H100, holding 60% MFU the whole way - All datasets, methodology, training code, evals, and training runs are open sourced I am proud of my team. What we built will move the vintage LLM field forward, and it moved us forward as researchers and as people. We paid for all of it ourselves, about $807 so far. Money is

Hello, As the title says submitted by /u/obliviousphoenix2003 [link] [留言]

Standard constrained RL assumes consequences are immediate and attributable to the current action. This breaks down whenever violations are delayed and stochastic, which is most real-world settings you end up penalizing whatever action happened to precede the observed violation, not the action that caused it. Working on CCPL (Causal Consequence-Penalized Learning) to address this: - A delay-corrected Bellman operator using an adaptive effective discount learned from the consequence-delay distribution. Contraction proof holds under unknown stochastic delay. - An Interventional Consequence Net (ICN), pretrained on structural-causal-model labels, estimating marginal causal contribution per action for attribution rather than penalizing based on temporal proximity. Limitations, to be upfront about them: - The ICN currently requires access to the environment's structural causal model to generate pretraining labels it's not learned end-to-end from observational or interventional data alone. That's a real constraint on applicability outside benchmark settings where the SCM is known or can be reasonably specified. Open to contributions and collaborators, especially if you work in constrained/safe RL or causal inference feel free to open an issue or reach out directly. submitted by /u/No_Cauliflower7923 [link] [留言]

The Unibook is a weird entry-level laptop for people with patience.

In one test clip, the auto subtitles looked almost perfect. Then one auto subtitle showed gp where the speaker had actually said HP . It was one token in a long transcript, and that was exactly the problem: nothing in the editor made it look more dangerous than the clean words around it. Disclosure: AI helped me edit and structure this article. The gp / HP mistake came from my own build, and I checked the technical details against the code and the working editor. I ran into this while building a subtitle editor. The ASR system already returned word-level timing and confidence values, but a polished block of text made every word look equally trustworthy. The model exposed uncertainty; the interface hid it. That led me to a narrower engineering conclusion: Auto subtitles are drafts. An accuracy score describes a model result; it does not define a finished review workflow. Why auto subtitles need more than one accuracy percentage Speech-to-text systems are often evaluated with word error rate , or WER. In its simplest form: WER = (substitutions + deletions + insertions) / reference words That is useful for comparing transcripts against a known reference. For auto subtitles, trouble starts when a model-level metric is turned into a product-level promise. Suppose a 100-word transcript contains one wrong word. Its word accuracy may look excellent. But a single auto subtitle can carry very different consequences: Changing “and” to “an” may be harmless. Changing a person’s name damages trust. Changing 15 to 50 changes the meaning. Changing HP to gp made my test caption look careless. Dropping “not” reverses the sentence. WER counts errors. It does not price their consequences. Good auto subtitles also depend on things that a transcript-only score does not fully describe: whether words appear at the right time; whether cue boundaries follow the sentence; whether a line is readable before it disappears; whether punctuation helps or hurts comprehension; whether the user knows

The shifts that actually matter for builders - late May to mid-August 2026 The last three months did not produce a single "GPT-5 moment." There was no single release that reset the conversation the way earlier step-changes once did. Instead, the ground moved in several places at once: a wave of frontier and open-weight model launches in July, growing candor about how badly long-context windows actually hold up, and a genuinely uncomfortable security story out of xAI's new agent product. Here's the short, opinionated version of what actually changed for people who ship AI systems. 1. Models & Capability GPT-5.6 (OpenAI) shipped in three tiers - Sol, Terra, and Luna after a government review, with the fastest tier reportedly hitting 750 tokens/sec on Cerebras hardware and a new "Ultra" mode for maximum reasoning effort. Anthropic's lineup grew fast: Opus 5 landed at unchanged Opus pricing ($5/$25 per million tokens), reportedly within half a point of a rival's benchmark peak at half the per-task cost, alongside a new Sonnet 5 and a higher "Fable 5" tier. xAI iterated twice: July's Grok 4.5 (1.5T parameters, trained partly on coding-agent interaction data) was followed by Grok 4.6 on August 12 - a 500K-token-context model aimed at coding and long-running agents, priced at $2/$6 per million tokens standard and $4/$12 for long-context requests. Google's Gemini Flash line saw three releases in quick succession - 3.5, 3.6, and then 3.7 Flash - each undercutting the last on price. 3.6 Flash alone cut output pricing from $9.00 to $7.50 per million tokens. Open-weight competition intensified: Kimi K3 (Moonshot) became the largest open release yet at 2.8T parameters (104B active via MoE) with a 1M-token window, and it was joined by DeepSeek V4-Pro, the Qwen3.8 series, and GLM-5.3 - plus Inkling (Thinking Machines), a 975B open-weight MoE trained on 45 trillion multimodal tokens. One-line interpretation: The capability ceiling is still rising, but the more interesting number th

Recently, the AAAI 2027 organizers sent an email regarding collusion occurring during the review process, especially in the 2-cycles category (i.e., an author of Paper A reviews Paper B, while an author of Paper B reviews Paper A). Given the fact that most submissions come from a single country, there are higher chances that the assignment algorithm will naturally create 2-cycles among authors from that country. This, in turn, means that most authors involved in collusion could be from that country. I will not name that country; otherwise, I would be labelled as racist. By the way, did AAAI release statistics about the number of submissions, like they did last time? It is also good news that a major and prestigious conference like AAAI is acknowledging that collusion is happening. We all knew that this kind of collusion had been happening for years. There are papers accepted at top conferences such as NeurIPS, ICLR, AAAI, and ICML that do not even have their code published on GitHub. This forces other researchers in the community to spend substantial time reimplementing the code themselves if they want to reproduce the reported results. What are the views of other authors on this? submitted by /u/Fragrant_Fan_6751 [link] [留言]

Does anyone know how the BMVC to IJCV special issue recommendation works? Is it mainly based on the review scores, or is it a separate decision by the ACs/program chairs (e.g. based on oral/highlight selection, reviewer comments, etc.)? Also, is there any way to know at this point whether a paper has been recommended for the IJCV track, or do authors only find out later through a separate email? Would be great to hear from anyone who has gone through this in previous years! submitted by /u/Secondhanded_PhD [link] [留言]

This is a simplified guide to an AI model called Beat_this maintained by Xavriley . If you like these kinds of analysis, you should join AImodels.fyi or follow us on Twitter . Overview beat_this is a beat and downbeat tracking model from the ISMIR 2024 paper "Beat This! Accurate Beat Tracking Without DBN Postprocessing" by xavriley and collaborators at CPJKU. The model detects precise beat positions and downbeat boundaries in audio files without relying on Dynamic Bayesian Network postprocessing, achieving state-of-the-art F1 scores while maintaining generality across diverse music genres. The architecture alternates convolutions with transformers operating either over frequency or time dimensions, and is trained on multiple datasets including solo instruments, pieces with time signature changes, and classical music with high tempo variations. The main model ( final0 , final1 , final2 ) weighs approximately 78 MB each, with a smaller variant available at 8.1 MB. The most critical detail before using it: the model achieves good results specifically because it avoids meter and tempo constraints that traditional systems impose, but this means it can still fail on difficult and underrepresented genres and performs worse on continuity metrics compared to methods using postprocessing. Best use cases Music information retrieval and analysis workflows. If you build music analysis software that needs to segment tracks into beat-aligned sections for tempo detection, structural analysis, or synchronization with other modalities, beat_this provides clean beat and downbeat annotations without requiring external postprocessing pipelines. The model outputs precise timestamps suitable for downstream music information retrieval tasks like onset detection or harmonic analysis. Rhythm-aware music production tools. For digital audio workstations, beat detection plugins, or metronome applications, this model provides frame-level accuracy suitable for real-time audio alignment and grid s

La forma del problema Un directorio es una superficie: el miembro lo abre y adivina. Un recomendador es una superficie de empujar: el sistema propone y tiene que justificarse. La justificación es la parte difícil, y es donde vive la estadística. Tres restricciones hicieron esto distinto de un recomendador de contenido: El item es una persona con capacidad finita. Un hilo se le puede recomendar a diez mil personas. Un experto no. Una mala recomendación es cara de los dos lados. Quien pide desperdicia una petición, el experto desperdicia una hora, y los dos aprenden a ignorar la superficie. La afirmación tiene que ser checable. "Quizá te guste este hilo" no necesita evidencia. "Esta persona está un nivel adelante de ti en diseño de sistemas" sí. Recuperación: híbrida, fusionada con RRF Tres recuperadores independientes sobre el conjunto de expertos elegibles, fusionados con Reciprocal Rank Fusion: def rrf_fuse ( * ranked_lists , k = 60 ): """ Fusiona listas de ids rankeadas. El score depende solo del rank, nunca de la escala propia del recuperador, que es el punto: la similitud coseno y un conteo de hilos resueltos no son números comparables. """ fused = {} for lst in ranked_lists : for rank , key in enumerate ( lst ): fused [ key ] = fused . get ( key , 0.0 ) + 1.0 / ( k + rank ) return fused RRF es la primitiva correcta aquí por una razón que vale la pena decir: los recuperadores emiten cantidades incomparables. Uno regresa un coseno en [-1, 1] , uno regresa un conteo entero de hilos resueltos, uno regresa un delta de nivel de escalera. Normalizarlos a una escala común requiere supuestos sobre sus distribuciones que nadie tiene a este volumen de datos. RRF descarta las magnitudes y se queda solo con el orden, que es exactamente la información que sobrevive a una muestra chica. k = 60 es la constante estándar de la formulación original de Cormack et al. Aplana la cabeza: la diferencia entre el rank 1 y el rank 2 es 1/61 - 1/62 ≈ 0.00026 , así que un recuperador no pu

Originally published on tamiz.pro . The field of AI agents has moved rapidly from single-model executors to complex multi-agent orchestration. But after running 157 agent deployments across diverse task domains, one pattern emerged with striking consistency: planning quality predicts success far better than execution speed or model size. This isn't just theoretical—it's a practical lesson that's reshaping how engineers architect agent fleets, giving rise to what we're now calling Orca-style agents : hierarchical, planning-first systems that separate the expensive business of thinking from the cheaper business of doing. The Experiment: 157 Agent Runs Over six months, our team deployed and monitored 157 distinct agent runs across four primary use cases: code generation pipelines, automated testing workflows, infrastructure-as-code provisioning, and data transformation tasks. Each run varied along three dimensions: Architecture : Single-agent vs. flat multi-agent vs. hierarchical (Orca-style) Planning depth : No planning, brief intent statement, or full recursive planning loop Execution model : Direct LLM call per action vs. tool-augmented execution with validation The results were unambiguous. Systems that invested 3-5x more tokens in planning achieved 4.2x higher task completion rates and 3.8x fewer rollback cycles compared to agents optimized purely for fast execution. The correlation between planning sophistication and success held across every domain. Why Planning Beats Raw Execution The intuition behind this finding rests on an economic principle of LLM usage: planning is cheap relative to costly mistakes . A well-structured plan reduces the probability of executing the wrong sequence of tools, making incorrect API calls, or generating code that fails integration testing. Consider the token economics: Phase Tokens (typical) Cost impact Planning (intent + decomposition) 800–2,500 Low Execution per subtask 300–1,200 Medium Correction after failure 1,500–4,000 High

Every night my Mac quietly rewrites my long-term memory. Not metaphorically — a shell script drains that day's Claude Code conversation logs into an Obsidian vault, commits them to a private repo, and leaves a briefing on my desktop. It took three real outages to make it reliable. This is the script, the three failures, and the design that came out of them. Why This Setup Works Claude Code's "memory" disappears by default Claude Code sessions are independent of one another. The root cause of a bug you found during a long working session today, the reason you settled on a particular architecture after trial and error, the accumulated knowledge that "this direction already failed once" — none of it is available in the next conversation once you close the session. Even on a paid plan, even with the most capable model available, if context isn't carried over you have to explain everything from scratch every time. Many people have had the experience of thinking "I already looked this up before" or "I should have failed at this once already, and yet here I am heading down the same road again." In a phase where you're shipping personal projects in volume, this problem is fatal. Once three or four projects are running in parallel, tracking "where each project currently stands" by hand hits a wall fast. And Claude, unable to reference previous conversations, repeats the same deliberations. The solution is to build an environment, not a task My first attempt at this problem was "I'll write up a summary by hand every day." It didn't last. When work has momentum you don't feel like writing a summary, and when you're tired you can write even less. A system that depends on human willpower doesn't function during a high-volume solo-dev phase. The answer was to build an environment that automatically drains Claude's conversation logs into Obsidian every night. Once the environment is in place, willpower and motivation are irrelevant. The Mac just does it. The reason I chose Obsidia

Over the past year I have been fine-tuning open vision-language models - 9B dense up to a 35B mixture-of-experts - with supervised fine-tuning and GRPO-style reinforcement learning on verifiable rewards. Most of what I learned was not about algorithms. It was about the ways a training run can look healthy while doing nothing, or crash for reasons that have nothing to do with your code. Three failures, in increasing order of how long they fooled me. Failure 1: the metric that measured the wrong thing (18 hours) I ran an 18-hour supervised fine-tune that reported token accuracy climbing steadily to 99%. Looked like a textbook run. The real evaluation metric - accuracy on multiple-choice questions - never moved. The cause was a mismatch between what I supervised and what I evaluated. The training loss was over free-text reasoning traces; the evaluation scored a single extracted answer letter. The model got extremely good at reproducing the shape of the training text - hence 99% token accuracy - without that transferring to the decision I actually cared about. Token accuracy is a proxy, and proxies drift from the target exactly when you stop checking. The fix was structural, not a hyperparameter: supervise the thing you evaluate. If the deliverable is a constrained answer, the training signal has to reach that answer, not just the prose around it. The general rule I took: any training metric that is not your evaluation metric is a hypothesis about correlation, and you should check that correlation before you spend GPU-days on it. Failure 2: the crash that was two libraries disagreeing about position ids The GRPO trainer for the 9B vision model crashed in the forward pass, deep inside rotary position embedding code. Nothing in my training code had changed. The diagnosis took a while because the bug lived at the boundary between components: the text sequence length was derived from token-type ids, while the vision sequence length came from the image grid - and image-pad t

Small language models can now run directly on phones. But most of them stop learning the moment they ship. For personal AI, that feels like a strange stopping point. Some of the most useful signals arrive only after the model acts: Did the user dismiss the notification? Did they open it later? Did they rewrite the suggestion? Did they ask for it again? These interactions contain useful information about the user, but they are delayed, private, and ambiguous. They are not clean labels, and they are not reliable scalar rewards. To explore this problem, we built Online-SDFT , an open-source prototype that continually fine-tunes a small language model from delayed interactions while keeping the learning loop on the device. The prototype uses: LiquidAI/LFM2.5-230M A rank-4 LoRA adapter ONNX Runtime Training A bounded on-device replay buffer An Android notification-routing testbed Once the model has been provisioned, inference, interaction storage, replay, and adapter updates all happen locally. Why standard fine-tuning is awkward here Suppose the model receives a notification and chooses one of three actions: Show it now Save it for later Archive it Supervised fine-tuning would require a correct action for every notification. But the phone never observes what the ideal action was. Reinforcement learning replaces the correct answer with a reward, but that reward is also difficult to define. Opening a notification does not necessarily mean it arrived at the right time. Ignoring it does not necessarily mean it was unimportant. The user may simply have been busy. There is another complication: the model only observes the result of the action it actually took. If it archives a notification, it cannot know what would have happened had it shown the notification immediately. What the phone receives is not a label or reward. It receives hindsight . Using the same model as student and teacher The core idea is simple: let the model reconsider its decision after seeing what happened

Electric-vehicle assistants rarely have just one job. A short Turkish question may ask for a nearby station, a charging-price comparison, help planning a route, or an explanation of battery health. Before an application can retrieve current data or generate an answer, it needs to identify that intent reliably. We created the Turkish EV Charging Intent Dataset as a small, transparent starting point for that routing problem. Version 1.0.0 contains 192 Turkish queries distributed evenly across eight intent classes. It is open under CC BY 4.0, includes fixed train, validation, and test splits, and is maintained by TekPedal , an EV charging map and vehicle decision platform for Türkiye. You can explore the dataset interactively , inspect the source and validation workflow on GitHub , or cite the permanent Zenodo release with DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22062688 . Why intent routing comes first An assistant should not answer every EV question in the same way. Different requests need different tools and freshness guarantees: a station request needs a map or location index; a price request needs current tariff data; route planning needs distance, range, and charging-stop logic; a battery question needs careful educational content; a vehicle comparison needs structured specifications. An intent router makes that separation explicit. It can send each query to the correct retrieval source, product page, or application workflow. This also makes evaluation easier: teams can test routing independently before measuring the quality of downstream answers. Dataset design The taxonomy contains eight balanced classes, with 24 records in each class: FIND_STATION COMPARE_PRICE ROUTE_PLANNING CHARGING_SPEED VEHICLE_COMPARISON HOME_CHARGING BATTERY_HEALTH OWNERSHIP_COST Every record includes a stable ID, the Turkish query, the intent identifier, a human-readable Turkish label, a suggested TekPedal content route, the assigned split, the language, and a provenance marker. Here is a simplified example