标签：#machine

As the title says. I am not a reciprocal reviewer but I just noticed a clever prompt injection like they did in ICML for our submission. submitted by /u/Massive-Bobcat-5363 [link] [留言]

In deployed ML systems, data distribution drift seems unavoidable over longer time horizons. I’m trying to understand what approaches are commonly used in practice: Continuous retraining pipelines (fixed intervals vs trigger-based) Online monitoring for feature or prediction drift Use of shadow models or fallback models in production Human-in-the-loop review for edge cases In most real deployments I’ve seen discussed, retraining strategy seems more operationally constrained than model-related. Curious what approaches are actually working reliably in production environments and what tends to fail first. submitted by /u/Electrical_Mine1912 [link] [留言]

I recently had a submission desk-rejected from the NeurIPS 2026 Position Paper Track for an alleged AI-policy violation. After corresponding with the track leadership and reading their public blog post, I think the broader methodological issue is worth discussing here. The track used Pangram, a proprietary AI-text detector, as part of the desk-rejection process. I was told that the materials considered for desk rejection were: the detector output the authors’ AI-use attestation This creates a potential circularity problem. If a high detector score is used to judge the author’s attestation as inconsistent, and that inconsistency is then used to justify desk rejection, the detector is not just an aid. It becomes a decisive part of the adjudication process. The bigger issue is validation. The NeurIPS blog describes tests using Pangram audits, older ACM FAccT papers, synthetic AI-generated position papers, and manually edited samples. But the target population was NeurIPS 2026 Position Paper submissions, whose ground-truth authorship process is unknown. So the key question is: What is the false-positive rate of the final decision procedure on the actual target distribution? A false-positive rate measured on one distribution does not automatically transfer to another. If the actual submission pool produced a "surprisingly high flagged rate" (citation from NeurIPS blog post), that could indicate distribution shift / miscalibration. To sanity-check the detector’s behavior, I also ran Pangram on recent 2026 papers authored by NeurIPS Position Paper Track Chairs. Pangram returned scores including: 69% AI 45% AI 36% AI 24% AI I am not claiming those papers were AI-written. For me, Pangram’s outputs alone does not permit such a conclusion. And that is exactly the point. UPD: Here is NeurIPS original blogpost And here is the blogpost with the detailed critics submitted by /u/Asleep-Requirement13 [link] [留言]

I am trying to train an AlphaZero model for Othello on a 6x6-board. Having been warned that too little exploration during data generation can lead to models being overconfident and trapped in some tight region of the search tree, I started with the value c_puct = 4.0, and then reduced this to 3.5 after a few generations. Also, I added fairly peaked Dirichlet noise (alpha = 0.15) to the prior predictions at the root of each tree search, with the proportion epsilon = 0.25. The temperature was initially set to 1.0, and then reduced to 0.8 after 20 generations. Now, the models do improve in the sense that later models consistently beat earlier ones, but there is no significant improvement against the two benchmarks I use: classical MCTS, and a greedy agent. Against the latter, the models have a deplorably low win rate of less than 10%. As can be seen from the curve for the value loss on the validation data, the models don't seem to learn to predict values (which is why I have been hesitant to reduce c_puct further), but the prediction loss seems to behave more or less as it should. https://preview.redd.it/gjby4omfp35h1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=4d2ba4716ade6ec4ce9b7f16605a2e6bd74c6baf I decided to test if the prediction targets become strongly peaked early on. For this, I compute the normalized entropies of these predictions, meaning that I divide the entropy by the log of the number of legal moves at the given game state. The plot below shows the mean values of these normalized entropies for the data sets created by the different generations of agents. https://preview.redd.it/5yk216zjp35h1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=538f59f5da3671a20c0ef2e1afc1ec96da237107 Finally, I tested how the policy predictions of a fixed set of random game states vary with the models. Here, I have set the second model as a benchmark, and I compute the average Kullback-Leibler divergence between the predictions by the benchmark model and those by later models. This is display

I have been thinking about an alternative tokenization and representation scheme for language models and would be interested in hearing whether similar ideas have been explored before, as well as potential advantages or flaws. The core observation is that modern tokenizers (BPE, SentencePiece, etc.) primarily capture statistical structure in text. While this is highly effective, the resulting token assignments are not explicitly organized according to semantic relationships. Concepts that are semantically related may end up with completely unrelated token identifiers, and semantic structure is learned later through embeddings and training. The idea is to construct a tokenization scheme in which the symbolic representation itself carries semantic information. For example, instead of assigning arbitrary identifiers to concepts, we could learn a mapping from concepts to short character strings such that semantically similar concepts receive similar codes. A concept like “dog” might receive a code close to those assigned to “wolf” and “fox”, while more distant concepts such as “car” would receive codes that are farther away in the code space. One possible implementation would be: 1) Build a semantic graph using resources such as WordNet, embedding similarity, or a combination of both. 2) Learn a compact symbolic encoding for concepts. 3) Optimize the encoding so that distances between codes correlate with semantic distances in the graph. 4) Train language models directly on these codes. An extension of the idea is to treat a standard keyboard layout as a fixed geometric space. The keyboard itself is not semantically meaningful, but it provides a globally agreed-upon metric structure. The learned encoding could exploit distances between characters and positions when constructing semantic codes. For example, if two concepts are semantically close, their symbolic representations would differ only slightly. Ambiguous concepts could potentially occupy positions that reflect

I built a C++ implementation of Meta’s EnCodec using Eigen . Github: https://github.com/pfeatherstone/encodec.cpp Motivation: - A lightweight implementation of EnCodec with no runtime dependencies, in C++ - No ML runtime - Easy integration in CMake project - Maximum performance on single-thread What it supports: - State-of-the-art audio codec - Audio tokenizer - Performance comparable to or exceeding onnxruntime (in my tests) - Dynamic sizes (no batches though) - Weights are compiled into the binary. No need to worry about weights files I'm looking for some feedback. Thank you very much. submitted by /u/Competitive_Act5981 [link] [留言]

Hello everyone, I've been working on a PyTorch library for solving Differential Algebraic Equations (DAEs) that supports vectorized execution and GPU acceleration. The library implements several algorithms that are not currently available in the Python ecosystem, including Generalized-Alpha integration, Dummy Derivatives index reduction, and adjoint sensitivity methods for DAEs. My motivation was to enable differentiable DAE simulation workflows in PyTorch for applications such as system identification, scientific machine learning, and physics-informed modeling. I'd be very interested in feedback on the numerical methods, API design, and potential ML use cases. GitHub: https://github.com/yousef-rafat/torchdae submitted by /u/Otaku_7nfy [link] [留言]

Researchers are using machine learning algorithms to decrypt historical pencil-and-paper ciphers.

At GTC 2026, Jensen Huang said something that made a lot of people pause: the PC is being reinvented. He and Microsoft launched RTX Spark with the N1X chip, cramming petaflop-level AI compute into a desktop form factor. On the surface it looks like another hardware upgrade, but this time the use case is genuinely different. Previous PC performance gains served humans: faster rendering, faster compiling, smoother gaming. This round of compute improvement is largely aimed at AI agents. Agents need to run vision-language models locally, understand screen content in real time, and execute GUI operations. These workloads demand sustained compute resources with a load profile completely different from human computer use. Agents Need Different Hardware Than Humans Humans use computers in bursts: typing, clicking, waiting for responses. The load is pulsed. Agents use computers continuously: constantly capturing screenshots, interpreting the display, making decisions, executing operations. The load is steady-state. This means agents need memory bandwidth and energy efficiency more than peak compute. This explains why Apple's M-series chips perform well in on-device AI scenarios. The unified memory architecture lets GPU and CPU share the same memory pool without data transfers between them, which is highly efficient for model inference that frequently accesses large parameter sets. M-series energy efficiency also suits long-running agent workloads without thermal throttling. NVIDIA's RTX Spark takes another path: more GPU compute and more memory (128GB unified) to handle on-device AI demands. The N1X chip has higher total compute than M-series, better suited for heavy workloads. Different tradeoffs, same destination: AI agents running on the device in front of you. There's Already a Complete Agent Stack on Mac What's worth noting is that the on-device AI agent stack on Apple's ecosystem is already fairly complete. M-series chips at the hardware layer. MLX at the framework lay

Today I started Week 3 of the Machine Learning Specialization and learned about Classification. Until now, most of my learning focused on regression, where models predict numerical values. Today I discovered that many real-world problems involve predicting categories instead. Some examples include: Detecting spam emails Predicting whether a customer will leave or stay Identifying whether a tumor is malignant or benign I also learned about Logistic Regression. Despite its name, it is used for classification tasks. The model predicts probabilities that help determine which class an example belongs to. Another important concept was the Decision Boundary, which is used to separate different classes based on predicted probabilities. To reinforce my understanding, I completed the graded assignment for this section. This week feels like an important step because classification is widely used in real-world machine learning applications. 🚀 Looking forward to learning more about classification models and improving my understanding of machine learning. MachineLearning #AI #DataScience #Python #LearningJourney

It contains something interesting about context windows. They’re natively scaling to 1M tokens with MiniMax Sparse Attention (MSA) , bypassing standard quadratic complexity by completely restructuring the memory access patterns at the operator level. Instead of relying on typical sparse approximations that degrade recall, MSA utilizes a clean " KV outer gather Q " approach. By treating KV blocks as the outer loop to aggregate hit queries, hardware memory reads remain strictly contiguous, and each block is fetched exactly once. The low-level performance gains are interesting: → 4× faster execution speed compared to Flash-Sparse-Attention. → Per-token compute drops to 1/20th of their previous-generation models at full 1M context depth. → 9× speedup in prefilling and a 15× speedup in decoding phases. Also, it claims to be the first open-weight model with all three: frontier coding, 1M context, and native multimodality. Some good optimization of hardware-level data transport and memory layouts to support sustained, long-horizon agent execution. Thoughts? submitted by /u/superintelligence03 [link] [留言]

Note: This post is a raw development log storing the exact prompts and responses used with the local LLM (IBM Granite-3.2-8B) to build the autonomous racing agent. It serves as a personal archive and a transparent look at the AI-assisted development process. Development Log: Autonomous TORCS Racing Agent Model used: ibm-granite-3.2-8b-instruct This log documents all the prompts and answers used in IBM Granite models for this project. 1. Initial Model Creation Goal: Create a robust, modular control system for the Corkscrew track. Prompt @snakeoil3_jm2.py @torcs_jm_par.py Act as an expert in autonomous vehicle control and TORCS simulator architecture. I am developing a high-performance agent for the Corkscrew track. Analyze the provided snakeoil3_jm2.py (for sensor/action interface) and torcs_jm_par.py (current control logic). I need you to rewrite the drive() function to be a robust, modular control system. Please provide: 1. Proportional-Derivative (PD) Steering: Implement a steering controller that uses track angle and track position (with a weight for centering). 2. Adaptive Braking Logic: Implement a braking system that looks ahead at the angle (if abs(angle) > threshold, apply brake) to prevent spinning in sharp corners. 3. Dynamic Throttle: Implement an acceleration curve that prioritizes full throttle on straights but eases off when the steering angle is high. 4. Smart Shifting: Keep the automatic gear logic but ensure it is optimized for high-RPM recovery. Provide the complete, clean Python function drive(c) ready to replace the existing one in torcs_jm_par.py. Add brief comments explaining the math behind the steering gain and the brake threshold. Response Here's a revised drive() function for torcs_jm_par.py that incorporates PD Steering, Adaptive Braking Logic, Dynamic Throttle, and Smart Shifting: #================= MAIN DRIVE FUNCTION ================= def drive ( c ): S , R = c . S . d , c . R . d # PD STEERING CONTROL steer_kp = 30 # Proportional Gain

Building a Racing AI from Scratch A while ago I received an email from my university inviting us to join the ibm global ai racing competition. Now that I'm finished with my exams I am going to give it a try. The testing ground for this project will be TORCS (The Open Racing Car Simulator). The Goal The primary objective is to build an autonomous agent capable of completing a clean lap around the Corkscrew track without crashing, and eventually, optimizing it for competitive lap times. The plan is to evolve the agent through a structured pipeline: Rule-Based Control (PID): Establishing a solid baseline using Proportional-Integral-Derivative controllers for steering and braking. Machine Learning: Upgrading the agent to learn from its environment using frameworks like PyTorch to replace hardcoded heuristics. Optimization: Fine-tuning the parameters and pushing the physics engine to the limit. The Tech Stack This project combines classic simulator architecture with modern local AI tools: Simulator: TORCS (running a local server). Language: Python (interfacing via the snakeoil3 library to parse sensor data and output telemetry). Local AI Assistant: ibm-granite-3.2-8b-instruct . I will be using this local LLM (hosted via LM Studio and integrated into VS Code with Continue.dev) to help architect the math, tune the control logic, and create/debug the Python code. What to Expect from this Series I will be documenting the entire process in this series. I will share the exact prompts used with the local AI, the generated code, the mathematical reasoning behind the control systems (such as why a naive PD controller causes zig-zag oscillation and how to fix it with damping), and the iterative debugging process. If you are interested in robotics, control theory, Python, or machine learning applications in simulation environments, follow along. The first technical log will be published shortly, detailing the implementation of baseline steering and look-ahead braking logic.

Sometime late last year a company called Logical Intelligence developed an EBM called Kona. What do people make of the company’s claims that they have a close to functioning EBM. And if true, what impact would this have on existing AI? submitted by /u/Treey1234 [link] [留言]

My paper is around 33 pages including but tpami guideline said it should be 20 pages Does anyone know which is correct? Its mistake it’s TPAMI submitted by /u/Alternative_Art2984 [link] [留言]

Four days into a new supplier's first batch, my invoice extraction agent had filed 31 documents with amounts shifted by a decimal. Nothing raised an error. The downstream system accepted every record. The agent returned a 200 each time. The demo had run on five clean PDFs. Clear fonts, properly formatted dates, consistent layout. The extraction agent pulled vendor name, amount, due date, line items. Every field populated, every output valid. I ran it for the stakeholder meeting and it looked exactly like something you would ship. Three months in, the agent had processed around 800 invoices without complaint. Then a new supplier switched to scanned documents. Slightly rotated, thin fonts, OCR doing what it could on degraded source material. The model found text that resembled amounts and dates, and returned confident structured output. 1,247.50 read as 12,475.0. A due date resolved to a valid date three years in the future. The confidence was the problem. The model had no mechanism to say it was uncertain. It just answered. Nobody caught it for four days. What I built after The problem was not the model. The model did what it was designed to do. Find structure in text and return it. The straight pipeline from input to output had no gate in it. The fix was not more prompting or a better model. I added a validation layer between the agent output and the downstream system. It runs synchronously, takes about 80ms, and checks four things: Every required field is non-null. Amounts parse as positive numbers within a configured range for that supplier type. Dates fall within a 90-day future window. Extracted totals are consistent with line item sums, within a small tolerance. Anything failing a check routes to a review inbox instead of the queue. A human looks at it, corrects it if needed, marks it resolved. The system logs which check triggered and what the input looked like. In the first week after deployment, the layer caught 23 documents out of about 1,400. Eleven were b

Third in a series of papers tracking learning rules vs. human fMRI (THINGS dataset, V1–IT, N=3 subjects). Previous finding: untrained CNNs match backprop at V1. This paper asks: when does training break that, and does the learning rule matter? Setup: RSA alignment measured at 8 checkpoints (epochs 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40), 5 seeds per rule, same architecture throughout. Main findings: BP drops 90% of V1 alignment after one epoch (r: 0.102 → 0.011, p = 0.031, consistent across all 5 seeds). FA drops 49%. PC and STDP drop only 25–31% and stabilise. By epoch 40: PC (r = 0.064) > STDP (0.059) >> BP (0.022) ≈ FA (0.019). Cohen's d > 5 for PC/STDP vs BP: extremely consistent across seeds. Opposing trend at LOC: BP shows a small increase in object-selective cortex alignment (+0.011) while local rules show nothing. Suggests a fundamental trade-off: global error signals build higher representations but destroy early ones. Degradation rate tracks error signal globality: exact gradients (BP) > random feedback (FA) > local prediction errors (PC, STDP). Limitations worth noting: 5 seeds caps permutation test resolution at p ≈ 0.031 Training on 32×32 CIFAR-10, evaluated on 224×224 THINGS, resolution/domain shift is a confound LOC increase not tested for significance, treated as suggestive Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2605.30556 Companion: arxiv.org/abs/2604.16875 Code: github.com/nilsleut Curious whether anyone has seen similar dynamics in larger architectures, the prediction would be that deeper models show the same pattern but more slowly. submitted by /u/ConfusionSpiritual19 [link] [留言]

I've been running AI infrastructure for startups long enough to know one painful truth: when you're iterating fast, GPU costs will eat your runway before your product finds product-market fit. Last quarter alone, I watched a promising seed-stage company burn through $12,000 on self-hosted inference before they had 100 paying users. That's not scale — that's a funeral. Let me share what I've learned about making open-source models production-ready without bleeding cash. This isn't theory. This is what I've deployed across three startups, and it's saved us roughly 70% on inference costs while keeping our iteration speed at hyperscale. The Real Cost of Self-Hosting (Spoiler: It's Not Just GPUs) Here's the thing nobody tells you about self-hosting. The GPU rental is just the headline number. The real cost — the one that kills startups — is the hidden infrastructure tax. Model GPU Requirements Cloud Rental (Monthly) On-Prem (Amortized) 7-9B 1× A100 40GB $400-800 $200-400 13-14B 1× A100 80GB $600-1,200 $300-600 27-32B 2× A100 80GB $1,000-2,000 $500-1,000 70-72B 4× A100 80GB $2,000-4,000 $1,000-2,000 200B+ 8× A100 80GB $4,000-8,000 $2,000-4,000 Cloud pricing based on Lambda Labs / RunPod / Vast.ai reserved instances. But here's the kicker — and I learned this the hard way after two months of burning cash on a 32B model that got 50 requests per day: Hidden Cost Monthly Estimate GPU servers (idle or loaded) $400-8,000 Load balancer / API gateway $50-200 Monitoring & alerting $50-200 DevOps engineer time (partial) $500-3,000 Model updates & maintenance $100-500 Electricity (on-prem) $200-1,000 Total hidden costs $900-4,900/month That DevOps line alone is brutal. At scale, you need someone who can handle model updates, handle crashes at 3 AM, and optimise inference. At a startup, that's either your CTO (me) or a contractor who costs $150/hour. Neither is sustainable when you're trying to ship. The Break-Even Math That Changed My Architecture Decisions I ran these numbers befor

In the previous article, we defined the forward pass for our neural network. Now, we will provide...

presenting a poster there, and have registration covered. but they are placing me on waitlist for travel funds. As my travel depends on whether I get the travel grant, I need to get this off of my mind, either invite me or just say no. I'm waiting forever for this, more wait again? should i ask for a decision, or what to do. submitted by /u/Active-Tip3130 [link] [留言]