标签：#MachineLearning

A deep dive into the podcasts, papers, tweets, and tutorials of the engineer who made me add a fifth...

source files + final paper pdf. ZIP containing the source files and final paper.pdf. Where does the supplemental materiel get uploaded? Because in that email it says include it in a "supplementary_materiel" folder. this is all very confusing. can someone clarify? submitted by /u/redskydawns [link] [留言]

I've been experimenting with a compiler/runtime project that I'm not entirely sure is a good idea, so I'd love some feedback from people who've worked on deployment systems. The idea is to compile an exported PyTorch model into a self-contained package that contains: graph binary weights backend kernels (currently WGSL) runtime metadata A lightweight runtime loads that package and executes it directly in the browser with WebGPU. No Python, no server inference, and no dependency on a heavyweight runtime. Right now the attached demos are just neural video representations because they were easy to test, but the motivation is actually operator networks and scientific ML, where I like the idea of distributing a single portable artifact. The repo is here: https://github.com/Slater-Victoroff/Kuma I'm mostly looking for architectural feedback. Some questions I'm wrestling with: Is embedding backend kernels in the artifact a terrible idea? Is this solving a real deployment problem or just reinventing ONNX Runtime? Are there existing systems I should study that take a similar approach? If you were designing a deployment format today, what would you change? I'd especially appreciate thoughts from people who've worked on ONNX, IREE, TVM, ExecuTorch, MLIR, or similar compiler/runtime projects. submitted by /u/svictoroff [link] [留言]

Since the steam sale is live I wanted to post a Dev log on my personal project https://nextsteamgame.com/ sharing some outcomes from the web traffic and how I changed the project from the great feedback I got! I made a post about a month ago explaining how I made this opensource explainable search engine built around steam reviews to people find new video games, Not through Relevancy but through aspect based similarity. Check out the old post for a better explanation if you want! https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1tb8k3n/steam_recommender_using_similarity_undergraduate/ I wanted to say thank you to all the people of r/datascience and r/MachineLearning that gave me feedback and tried out my tool! I improved the UI/UX of the website to make the vectors more clear and controllable, I Implemented a thumbs up and down feature on recommendations to see if users even like the tool. I also wanted to share the after effects of promoting this tool on reddit! from the 2,652 searches I got in the website 913 of them resulted in steam clicks! the games that were discovered were all in a uniform distribution and did not share much of a pattern showing me that the engine did its job in helping people find niche games across all genres! (More images attached to post to see data viz) I wanted to disclose that I made this tool to not make any profit of some kind, but it does use posthog so I can collect diagnostics now. submitted by /u/Expensive-Ad8916 [link] [留言]

In the recent Springer/Meteor email, it says: The deadline for the upload of the camera-ready manuscripts and source files is 30 June. This is a hard deadline and will not be extended. However, in the same email, the Meteor submission line for my paper says: submission due: June 27, 2026 A previous email from the ECCV Program Chairs also stated that the camera-ready deadline had been extended to 30.06 AoE and that this deadline is final. Does anyone know whether June 27 is just an internal/default Meteor due date, or whether it is the actual deadline for uploading in Meteor? Since the email says there is only one upload and the first upload is final, I want to avoid uploading too early if June 30 is the correct deadline. this is really confusing. submitted by /u/National-Resident244 [link] [留言]

What if there was a new programming language where the meaning of each token was so dense (or perhaps so specific) that an LLM could write robust code with fewer tokens and faster inference? Assuming there’s enough training data, do you think something like this allow an LLM to write better code faster? Rationale: 1) It would allow for faster inference. Fewer tokens required to do the same thing in Python = finish faster. 2) It would allow for more information in a 1M context window. Whatever you could fit in 1M tokens of Python, you could do 100x that in this theoretical language. 3) It would effectively remove the “noise” from human readable language (semi-colons, curly braces for example) which I would think would make the LLMs coding ability stronger. I could be wrong about this of course. submitted by /u/Spongebubs [link] [留言]

Token-based billing is causing my company to reevaluate small language models. I came across this paper that shows SLM supervised fine-tuning on traces from orchestration of frontier models can be nearly as performant and much cheaper. Has any tried this in the real world? submitted by /u/ThirdWaveCat [link] [留言]

Worried recruiters see "ML/AI engineer" on a resume and assume zero security depth, even with real hands on work in the space. Anyone hired into security from a non-traditional background like this — how'd you frame it? submitted by /u/Xorphian [link] [留言]

Hello, I'm currently working on my dissertation and feel like I could really use some advice from someone who looks at the problem with fresh eyes. I appreciate all input. The Problem: Multi Agent Path Finding is the problem of finding paths for several agents to their destinations. Lifelong MAPF is the same, but upon task completion an agent is assigned a new task. For my dissertation (and usually in research) agents move on a grid-like graph and time is discrete. Each timestep an agent can move to an adjacent tile or wait. A good LMAPF algorithm creates paths which maximise average jobs completed per timestep. Some LMAPF algorithms can also work on weighted graphs where each edge to an adjacent node (or itself) has its own cost. Such a graph is called guidance graph and the choice of edge weights can influence which paths the LMAPF algorithm creates also impacting throughput. My supervisor wanted to explore whether Evolutionary algorithms can be suitable for finding a guidance graph that improves throughput without changing the underlying LMAPF algorithm. A guidance graph is scenario specific meaning it is optimised for a specific LMAPF algorithm, map, and agent count. My algorithm so far: So far I've implemented a very basic evolutionary algorithm. An initial population of guidance graphs is randomly initialized (Limited to 10 at the moment). Then each candidate is plugged into the LMAPF algorithm for a certain amount of time steps and the completed jobs are counted to create that candidates fitness score. The top (2) candidates are selected and the rest are discarded. The top candidates are used to make a new set of candidates (no crossover). These step are repeated indefinitely. Issues I've has so far: The simulation can use a seed and is deterministic. The seed determines which nodes the jobs appear on. Using the same guidance graph but different seeds yields random fitness scores. The higher the simulation time the lower the coefficient of variation (standard

In the last essay I played a game with twelve people. Twelve apostles, one teacher, one set of events — and twelve sharply distinct ways of failing and succeeding to understand the same thing. Peter acts before he reflects, Thomas demands the marks in the hands, Matthew counts and structures, Judas asks what you'll give him. I called it pre-cognitive-science cognitive science: the Gospels did the hard work of selecting twelve incompatible human responses to one encounter, and every century since has projected its newest psychology onto that fixed set and found it fits. That essay had a quiet move in it I want to pull on now. The thing that doesn't change, I wrote, is the twelve people. The cognitive vocabularies come and go; the diversity of minds is the invariant. So here is the obvious next question, the one I couldn't stop turning over after I published: what happens when you stop counting people and start counting cultures? Not twelve apostles meeting one teacher, but N civilizations meeting one world. The same exercise, zoomed out A culture is not just a cuisine and a flag. It is a way of thinking that a few million people inherited without choosing it — an implicit operating system for what counts as obvious, what counts as rude, what counts as a good life, what counts as a threat. And like the apostles, each one is an answer to a question . You can describe any of them, I think, with three coordinates. A driver — the deep need the culture is organized around. Survival, honor, harmony, freedom, salvation, mastery, belonging. The thing that, if you threaten it, the culture treats as an attack on existence itself. A provoking question — the founding question the culture exists as a standing answer to. How do we survive the winter together? How do we live rightly before the gods? How do we stay free? How do we keep the harmony so the group doesn't tear itself apart? Cultures are old answers to questions most of their members have forgotten were ever asked. A thin

Hello everyone! I'm posting our research work as you might be interested in how we used ML to map part of the brain cells of the human hippocampus :) We used various human brain slices at high resolution (1 micrometer per pixel) and developed a custom segmentation pipeline that uses SoTA whole slice cell segmentation networks, like CellPoseSAM with good zero shot performances. We then refined semi-automatically those annotations and ensembled more finetuned models within the pipeline, adding a merging algorithm and a cell classification for 3 classes (excitatory and inhibitory neurons, and glial cells). But the high-res slices covered only a few parts of the hippocampus with respect to other slices scanned at 20x less the resolution where the cell nuclei are only 1 pixel wide. So we tried to map the high-res annotations we obtained to the low-res corresponding slices, and used a small UNet to supervise a density estimation task for 3 classes. We obtained a network that outputs a density map that can be sampled to obtain a probabilistic map of the cellular positions. Finally, to reconstruct the volume, we stacked together all the low-resolution density maps from all the slices that covered the hippocampus and obtained a point cloud, which you can see in the GIF along the corresponding anatomical CA (Cornus Ammonis) areas. The performances are still limited by the quantity of data and low-resolution slices, but we showed that the results were biologically plausible given previous estimates by other researchers. The paper was accepted at MICCAI 2026 a few weeks ago! Feedback is very welcome, especially on the density-estimation formulation and possible uses of the generated point cloud. submitted by /u/V_ector [link] [留言]

Adding an AI feature looks deceptively easy. You sign up for an API key, paste in a prompt, and within an hour you've got a working demo that makes the whole team lean over your shoulder. Then you ship it, traffic arrives, and two things happen at once: your latency graph develops a long, ugly tail, and your monthly bill arrives with a number that makes finance schedule a meeting. The gap between "impressive demo" and "production feature" is almost entirely about cost and latency engineering. The model is the easy part. Here's how to cross that gap. First, understand what you're actually paying for Most LLM APIs bill by tokens — roughly ¾ of a word each — and they bill both directions: the tokens you send (input) and the tokens the model generates (output). Output tokens are usually several times more expensive than input tokens, which has a non-obvious consequence: a verbose prompt is cheaper than a verbose answer. This reframes optimization. People obsess over trimming their prompts while letting the model ramble for 800 tokens when 80 would do. If you want to cut cost, the highest-leverage move is almost always constraining the output : ask for JSON, ask for a single sentence, set a max_tokens ceiling, and tell the model explicitly to be terse. Latency follows the same logic. Generation is sequential — the model produces one token at a time — so output length is the single biggest driver of how long a request takes. A 50-token answer is fast almost regardless of model. A 2,000-token answer is slow even on the fastest infrastructure. Lever 1: Don't call the model when you don't have to The cheapest, fastest LLM call is the one you never make. Two techniques eliminate a startling share of traffic. Caching identical and near-identical requests. Many real-world prompts repeat — the same FAQ-style question, the same document summarized twice, the same classification of similar inputs. A cache keyed on the normalized prompt turns a repeat request into a sub-millisecond

Your product might rank on page one of Google and still be invisible to AI. When someone asks ChatGPT "what's the best project management tool for small teams," does your product show up? For most SaaS companies under 50 employees, the answer is no. At Inithouse, we built Be Recommended to answer that question with a number: a single AI visibility score from 0 to 100 that tells you exactly where you stand across four major AI engines. Here is how the scoring works under the hood. What the score measures The Be Recommended score captures how often, how prominently, and how positively AI engines mention your product when users ask category-relevant questions. A score of 0 means no AI engine mentions you at all. A score of 100 means every tested prompt across all four engines names your product as a top recommendation. The four engines we test against: ChatGPT (OpenAI), Perplexity , Claude (Anthropic), and Gemini (Google). Step 1: Prompt generation We start by building a bank of 50+ real prompts that a potential customer would actually type into an AI assistant. These are not keyword-stuffed test queries. They mirror how real people ask for recommendations. For a CRM product, that looks like: "What CRM should a 10-person startup use?" "Best alternatives to Salesforce for small businesses" "Compare CRM tools with good API integration" "Which CRM has the best free tier in 2026?" We group prompts into three categories: direct (user names the product category), comparative (user asks for alternatives or comparisons), and situational (user describes a problem without naming a category). Each category tests a different signal: brand recognition, competitive positioning, and contextual relevance. Step 2: Multi-engine querying Each prompt gets sent to all four AI engines through their APIs. We capture the full response text, not just a yes/no for whether your product appeared. The raw responses go into a structured analysis pipeline. We run queries from neutral accounts with n

At the end of my last post , I presented an idea: what if I used the core of my last project, the cumulative matrix product, and repurposed it as a positional embedding? I just finished fleshing out the math behind HDD-RoPE and training a model with this positional embedding algorithm, and the results are excellent. When trained on the dataset TinyStories, the validation loss begins to converge a fair amount faster than the baseline transformer trained using xPos. A GPT-2-like model trained on TinyStories with hyperparameters copied from https://huggingface.co/roneneldan/TinyStories-33M (n_blocks=4, d_model=d_k=d_v=768) The repo at https://github.com/mikayahlevi/hdd-rope/ allows you to replicate the results and goes in depth about the math and details of the architecture. Standard RoPE breaks the queries and keys into groups of two and rotates each pair at a predefined rate. This allows the model to learn relative position by observing the change in basis between the queries and keys. Pairs of two make intuitive sense for a linear sequence, as a chunk can be rotated with a single degree of freedom, corresponding to linear one-dimensionally progressing position. HDD-RoPE moves past this intuition and instead says that position within a sequence is multidimensional. Therefore, the chunks can be broken into any size, such as 4 as used in the TinyStories example. Four-dimensional chunks correspond to 4 choose 2 = 6 axes of rotation (6-dimensional position.) Essentially, we're saying that a token doesn't just lie at a position within the sequence, but a position within any construct the model can learn, such as a paragraph or sentence. To facilitate this, I also make the amount of rotation along each axis data-dependent, such that it can learn how to advance the positions based on information stored in the current layer's activations. If you would like to learn more, please check out the repo. I formalize the math and lay out a roadmap. submitted by /u/mikayahlevi [link]

Hi, I've created an overview of the most important OCR benchmarks, along with the top open models, and links to their paper and code: https://paperswithcode.co/tasks/ocr . This week, new OCR models were released by Baidu and Mistral. Baidu released Unlimited OCR , a 3B-parameter model that introduces a key innovation called Reference Sliding Window Attention (R-SWA) and builds on top of DeepSeek OCR . Mistral released OCR 4 , which is available via an API. OCR, or Optical-Character Recognition, is the task of digitizing PDFs or scanned documents. There's, of course, a huge interest in this task, as it enables ingestion of all company data for agentic use cases. AI agents love Markdown; it can be valuable to turn all those messy PDF documents into a standardized, machine-readable format. This enables use cases like agentic RAG (retrieval-augmented generation), which powers chatbots, both internally and for external customer support. With a large number of OCR releases on Hugging Face over the last few months, it may be hard to know which one to use. Hence, I've built this page, which lists the major OCR benchmarks, along with the top-performing models and links to their code. This is obviously made available on Papers with Code , the website I'm maintaining (it's a revival of the old website, which was taken down). The top recommended benchmarks are OlmOCRBench, created by Ai2, and OmniDocBench, created by Shanghai AI Laboratory. Current top recommendations are Chandra OCR 2 by Datalab and Mistral OCR v4. The former is openly available, hence you can either self-host it or use their serverless API. Let me know which other tasks you want to see major benchmarks for now! Cheers, Niels open-source @ HF submitted by /u/NielsRogge [link] [留言]

Hi everyone, I trained a self-play RL agent for Generals.io that reached superhuman-level and ranked #1 on the human 1v1 leaderboard. It began as my master's thesis where the goal was to beat a prior algorithm based agent. We succeeded using behavior cloning, RL fine-tuning and reward shaping, but the agent was still consistently beaten by the top players. So I gave it a round two and fixed the largest bottlenecks: Reimplemented the whole pipeline in JAX (from NumPy/Torch) Used Vision Transformer instead of the CNN Both are a result of the same idea: to invest in scaling rather than human priors and ad-hoc patches. The blog is written as a guide for anyone building something similar — the dead ends, the decisions, and the intuitions and tricks I picked up along the way. It's all open source, including the fast JAX simulator — handy on its own if you want an imperfect-information RTS env to play with. Links - Guide: https://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~straka/blog/generals.html - Simulator (JAX): https://github.com/strakam/generals-bots - Agent: https://github.com/strakam/AverageJoe I hope you find the blogpost entertaining! Feedback and questions welcome 🤗. submitted by /u/shrekofspeed [link] [留言]

Quando comecei a trabalhar com tecnologia, há mais de duas décadas, a Inteligência Artificial era algo restrito a laboratórios de pesquisa e ficção científica. Hoje, ela está embutida no aplicativo que recomenda sua próxima série, no e-mail que filtra spam automaticamente e até no GPS que recalcula sua rota em tempo real. A IA deixou de ser promessa para se tornar infraestrutura invisível do cotidiano. Neste artigo, quero ir além do hype e mostrar, com exemplos concretos, como essa tecnologia já transforma a forma como vivemos e trabalhamos. Produtividade pessoal e profissional turbinada O caso de uso mais palpável da IA hoje está na produtividade. Assistentes baseados em modelos de linguagem (LLMs) como ChatGPT, Claude e Gemini reduziram drasticamente o tempo gasto em tarefas que antes consumiam horas: redação de e-mails, geração de relatórios, resumos de reuniões e até depuração de código. Na minha rotina como gestor de TI, integrei essas ferramentas a fluxos de trabalho reais. Por exemplo, utilizo modelos de IA para revisar contratos de smart contracts escritos em Rust para a rede Stellar, identificando padrões de vulnerabilidade antes mesmo da auditoria formal. Não substitui a perícia humana, mas funciona como uma primeira camada de triagem que economiza tempo precioso da equipe. Algumas aplicações práticas que recomendo testar: Transcrição e resumo automático de reuniões com ferramentas como Otter.ai ou Fireflies Geração de documentação técnica a partir de comentários de código Automação de respostas em suporte de primeiro nível via chatbots treinados com a base de conhecimento da empresa O segredo está em tratar a IA como copiloto, nunca como piloto automático. A revisão humana continua indispensável, especialmente em contextos críticos. Saúde, finanças e decisões do dia a dia A IA também opera nos bastidores de decisões que afetam diretamente nossa qualidade de vida. No setor de saúde, algoritmos de visão computacional já auxiliam radiologistas na detecção pr

Three AI stories landed this week that all poke at the same nerve: the images, video, and films we actually look at are getting an AI layer — and the line between "real" and "AI-made" keeps thinning. Quick rundown in the short, then my take below: 1. ChatGPT will start showing real, licensed photos — not AI fakes. OpenAI signed a multi-year display deal with Getty Images, so licensed photography shows up inside ChatGPT's search and discovery. It's display-only — the photos aren't used to train models. The twist I can't get over: AI image generation had nearly wiped Getty out (stock down ~55% on the year), and this one deal sent the shares up ~145%. The thing AI almost broke got rescued by AI. 2. ByteDance — yes, TikTok's parent — teased Seedance 2.5: a full 30-second video generated in a single shot, no stitching, up to 50 reference inputs, 4K. Most tools still cap out around 5–10 seconds, so "30s native, one pass" is a real jump in how usable the output is. Public launch is early July. 3. Google DeepMind is partnering with A24 on AI filmmaking — a ~$75M, non-exclusive deal to co-build Veo-powered tools. Notably Google gets no access to A24's film library or data. A prestige studio building with AI in the open makes the whole "AI in Hollywood" debate a lot less hypothetical. As someone building a daily AI-news pipeline on the side, the Getty one is the story I keep chewing on. So much of the "AI vs creators" fight has been framed as scrape-or-die. A display-licensing deal is a third option — pay to show the real thing, instead of generating a confident fake or quietly training on someone's work. I don't know if it scales, but it's the first move in a while that didn't feel zero-sum. The Seedance + A24 pair points the other way though: generation is getting longer, more controllable, and is walking straight into real production. So we get both at once — more verified real media and more convincing synthetic media, in the same week. Curious where other builders land:

Production vLLM is 100,000+ lines of C++, CUDA, and Python. It powers most of the industry's LLM serving — but reading it cold is brutal. So I built a study series around nano-vLLM , an open-source reimplementation of vLLM's core ideas in ~1,200 lines of pure Python. Every algorithm is visible. Every design decision is legible. It turned out to be the perfect lens for actually understanding how LLMs generate text. The result is an 11-chapter interactive guide. No ML background required — every piece of jargon is explained from scratch with analogies, diagrams, annotated source code, interactive simulators, and quizzes. What it covers: What Is LLM Inference? — tokens, autoregressive generation, Q/K/V attention, HBM vs SRAM Architecture — how 1,200 lines are organised; CPU control plane vs GPU data plane KV Cache — why storing Keys and Values turns O(N²) recomputation into O(1) lookup PagedAttention — virtual memory for the KV cache; how fragmentation wastes 60–80% of GPU memory The Scheduler — continuous batching; keeping the GPU at 95% utilisation instead of 12% Prefill vs Decode — same model, two completely different bottlenecks (compute-bound vs memory-bound) Prefix Caching — skip prefill for shared tokens; ~700ms → ~90ms TTFT Sampling Strategies — greedy, temperature, top-k, top-p, and what each does to the distribution Tensor Parallelism — splitting a model across GPUs; column/row parallel and all-reduce The Optimization Stack — FlashAttention, kernel fusion, CUDA Graphs, torch.compile Benchmarks — measuring honestly; why nano-vLLM matches vLLM on core throughput Each chapter is fully self-contained and interactive. A few of the simulators I'm most happy with: a PagedAttention block allocator you can fill up and watch fragment, a live scheduler you step through token by token, and a sampling playground where you reshape the probability distribution with sliders and sample from it. 🔗 Read the full series: https://ashwing.github.io/vllm-guide/ It's free and open.

TL;DR: A single eval number hides its own uncertainty. Eval confidence intervals from bootstrap resampling turn a point estimate like 84.2% accuracy into a range, so you stop shipping models on a difference that is noise. Two checkpoints came back from a fine-tuning run at 84.2% and 85.7% on our 500-example agent eval set. The 1.5 point gap read like a win, and someone wanted to promote the second checkpoint to staging. Before that, I wanted eval confidence intervals on both numbers, because a 500-example set carries more sampling error than most teams admit. At 500 examples, the 95% interval on a single accuracy near 85% spans roughly 3 points on each side. The win sat well inside the noise. I lead the fine-tuning and evaluation team at Nexus Labs, and the most common mistake I see is treating an eval score as exact. It isn't. Your eval set is a sample drawn from the input space you care about, and a different 500 examples would return a different number. Confidence intervals make that variance visible. What an eval confidence interval actually tells you An eval confidence interval is a range around a metric, like accuracy or F1, that quantifies how much the score would move if you resampled the eval set. A 95% bootstrap interval of [81.0%, 87.1%] means that across thousands of resamples of your data, 95% of the recomputed scores fell in that band. It measures sampling noise, not model quality. That distinction matters. Two checkpoints scoring 84.2% and 85.7% with overlapping intervals are, as far as your eval set can tell, indistinguishable. Card et al. showed in "With Little Power Comes Great Responsibility" that many NLP experiments are underpowered to detect the effect sizes they report. Computing bootstrap confidence intervals The bootstrap is resampling with replacement. You take your per-example results, draw N of them with replacement many times, recompute the metric each time, and read percentiles off the resulting distribution. There's no assumption that