标签：#machine

Most speech-to-text is benchmarked on audio that looks nothing like a WhatsApp voice note. The standard evaluation sets are read speech, broadcast news, or recorded interviews: single speaker, decent microphone, one language, quiet room, speaker aware they are being recorded. A WhatsApp voice note is close to the opposite on every axis. I have spent a while building around this, and the gap turned out to be wider than I expected. Acoustics Phone held at arm's length while walking, in a car, in a kitchen, on a street. Distance-to-mic varies wildly within a single recording , which breaks a lot of assumptions about consistent gain. Then there is the codec. Voice notes are Opus at low bitrate — efficient, but it discards exactly the high-frequency detail that helps disambiguate fricatives. /s/ versus /f/ versus /th/ get genuinely harder, and those distinctions carry real meaning. Register Conversational, not read. False starts, self-corrections, filler, trailing off mid-sentence, and long pauses that are not sentence boundaries — someone thinking, or getting distracted. Punctuation inference is much harder here than on read speech. And punctuation is most of what makes a transcript skimmable rather than a wall of text. A perfectly accurate word sequence with no paragraph breaks is close to useless if the point was to let someone read it faster than listening. Language This is the one that surprised me most. Voice notes are heavily code-switched. People drop English technical terms into Urdu, Hindi, Arabic, Spanish sentences constantly — not as an edge case, as the default register for a huge number of speakers. If you force a single language selection up front, you mangle every mixed utterance. Auto-detection is not a convenience feature in this domain. It is a correctness requirement. Length distribution Most notes are 5–45 seconds. Very little context to work with, and per-request overhead dominates if you architected for long files. Batching strategies that make sen

Why plain k-fold silently overfits your trading model — and the 4-line fix that stops it. The Problem With k-Fold in Time Series Financial data is sequential. k-fold shuffles rows, so a training row from 2 PM Tuesday sits next to a test row from 10 AM Monday. Worse: triple-barrier labels overlap . A label at bar t looks 6 bars into the future; a training row at t+2 "knows" part of that future. The model leaks. V1's history is full of "HIGH overfit" verdicts — train AUC high, test AUC flat. Plain TimeSeriesSplit is only marginally better; it still lets adjacent windows bleed into each other. Purged + Embargoed CV For each test window [t0, t1] : Purge any train row whose label window overlaps the test window. Embargo max_training_horizon bars after the test window — drop those too. Overlapping labels are not i.i.d. Purging + embargoing makes the split honest. def purged_embargo_split ( n , n_splits = 5 , embargo_frac = 0.02 ): idx = np . arange ( n ) fold = np . array_split ( idx , n_splits ) splits = [] for i in range ( n_splits ): test = fold [ i ] emb = int ( len ( test ) * embargo_frac ) lo , hi = max ( 0 , test [ 0 ] - emb ), min ( n , test [ - 1 ] + emb + 1 ) train_mask = np . ones ( n , bool ); train_mask [ lo : hi ] = False splits . append (( idx [ train_mask ], test )) return splits Tune Only When You Have Enough Optuna once "won" a validation set with only 4 decisive rows — statistically meaningless. Rule: never tune when the decisive (non-abstained) validation rows are below ~30–50. Widen the date range or symbol basket first; don't trust the trial. Three-Way Split, Always train (fit) → validation (early stop + HP select) → disjoint calibration set (sigmoid/ isotonic) → test (untouched, final score only). V1 sometimes conflated validation and calibration. Keep them separate. The Promotion Gate Log every trial's train/val/test gap, not just the winner's test score. Promote only if replay AND shadow (≥1 live session) both beat baseline on buyer metrics : 1.5x

Real integration notes for wiring NIFTY ML models to live broker data via Dhan. Research/ paper-trading context — not a live-trading recommendation. Why Dhan Dhan's API exposes direct option-chain access — exactly what an options-ML system needs: POST /optionchain — full chain for an underlying POST /optionchain/expirylist — available expiries Fields: security_id , last_price , volume , oi , previous_oi , implied_volatility , top_bid_price , top_ask_price , and greeks (delta/theta/gamma/vega) Security IDs are stable: NIFTY = 13 (IDX_I) , BANKNIFTY = 10001 (IDX_I) . The Pipeline Shape A research dashboard pulls live chain + underlying, runs the trained XGBoost model on each new 15-minute bar, and displays: side score (CE/PE alignment) gate state (entry ready / blocked) contract quality scores a doctrine/backtest report Keep the inference path separate from the execution path . The dashboard shows; a permissioned, human-approved module places orders. Paper Trade First The DhanLiveTrader pattern: load the model, predict on each new bar, place long orders with configurable SL/TP (default 1.0 ATR SL, 2.0 ATR TP), and run in paper mode first . Only after stable out-of-sample + paper evidence should any execution module even be considered. { "client_id" : "YOUR_DHAN_CLIENT_ID" , "access_token" : "YOUR_DHAN_ACCESS_TOKEN" , "is_paper_trade" : true , "nifty_symbol" : "NIFTY" , "quantity" : 50 , "max_trades_per_day" : 3 , "sl_atr_mult" : 1.0 , "tp_atr_mult" : 2.0 } The Hard Part: Stops A known footgun: using a Stop-Loss Limit (SL-L) order with price = sl − 0.05 means it won't fill if price crashes through the stop. Prefer SL-Market for the protective stop. Execution quality is its own research topic — don't bolt it on at the end. Honest Status The ML side of this stack showed real directional skill (60.5% top-decile accuracy) but the fixed-SL backtest was still unprofitable (PF 0.53). A dashboard that displays an honest "RESEARCH / PAPER" status is worth more than one that hid

Lessons from a real rebuild of an options-buyer prediction system. No profit claims — just the architecture that fixes the chronic bugs of V1. The Core Mistake in V1 V1 asked one XGBoost model one big fuzzy question: "CE ya PE?" — directly from raw CE/PE premium data. Premium is a transformed signal (underlying move × delta × gamma × IV × theta × spread × strike distance × liquidity). The model learned noise as much as signal. Concrete evidence from the research logs: Balanced accuracy stuck at 51–61% for months — hyperparameters were never tuned ( lr=0.02, depth=3 defaults used throughout; Optuna existed but was never run). A partition bug ( iv_change_1d shift inside single-row groups) silently zeroed a whole feature for the entire history. A rollup config flag compressed 15-minute bars into 1 row/day, destroying 760× of training volume (387 sequences instead of 295K+). Live paper trading: 31.6% win rate, −₹90.3k PnL , entry confidences only 55–64%. V2 Principle: Split the Question underlying mechanics --> side, range, ETA, invalidation option chain scanner --> is the buyer contract worth paying for? XGBoost (many heads) --> thin calibrated learner on clean mechanics Rule: underlying decides side; option contract decides execution eligibility. CE/PE premium is validated against, never learned as, direction. Many Shallow Heads, Not One Deep Model Instead of one CE/PE answer, V2 trains separate narrow heads: underlying_up/down_touch_{15,30,60}m ce_1p3x / ce_1p5x / ce_2p0x and pe_1p3x / pe_1p5x / pe_2p0x (SEPARATE CE and PE) no_trade_quality This single change removes most of the CE/PE confusion V1 fought for months. The Shallow Regularized Grid (the actual fix for overfit) learning_rate = 0.015 – 0.035 n_estimators = 800 – 2000 ( early stop ) max_depth = 2 – 3 min_child_weight = 12 – 40 gamma = 0.1 – 2.0 subsample = 0.65 – 0.90 colsample_bytree = 0.55 – 0.85 reg_alpha = 0.5 – 3.0 reg_lambda = 6.0 – 20.0 scale_pos_weight = min ( neg / pos , 8.0 ) V1's intraday head ha

How a theory of leftover surprise changed a memory layer Richard Emate Richard Emate Richard Emate Follow Aug 18 How a theory of leftover surprise changed a memory layer # python # ai # llm # opensource Add Comment 9 min read

Look, startup or Enterprise? How to Pick the Right AI API Stack Let me set the scene for you. A few months back, I was chatting with two friends on completely opposite ends of the AI spectrum. One was bootstrapping a side project on pizza and prayers, wondering if he could afford to add an LLM to his SaaS without going bankrupt. The other was leading engineering at a mid-sized fintech, sweating bullets because his CTO wanted enterprise-grade guarantees before signing a single contract. Same problem on paper: "we need an AI API." Completely different universes in practice. Here's how I'd actually walk each of them through it — and why the generic guides you'll find on the internet miss the mark. The Misconception That Trips Everyone Up I want to be honest with you about something. Most AI API guides assume both audiences want the same thing at different scales. That's wrong. Dead wrong. A startup founder I know burned through two weeks trying to wire up DeepSeek's direct API last quarter. He gave up not because the tech was hard, but because he didn't have a Chinese payment method, didn't want to verify with a Chinese phone number, and got stuck in a KYC loop. Meanwhile, an enterprise architect I talked to last month was spending months negotiating with OpenAI's sales team on annual contracts for committed-use pricing — when all he wanted was a predictable API endpoint with a real SLA behind it. The lesson? The "go straight to the provider" advice is a non-starter for a lot of people, and nobody's talking about why. Let me show you what actually matters depending on which side of the fence you're on. What Startups Actually Need (And Don't) Let me break this down. If you're building a startup — early stage, scrappy, maybe pre-seed or seed — your AI API checklist looks something like this: Cost matters more than perfection You want to experiment with multiple models without signing 12 contracts You need to ship this week, not next quarter Your "compliance team" is just

I recently bought a Shrike lite which has got 264KB of SRAM. I decided to train an image generation model that generates 32*32 pixel images. The microcontroller also has an FPGA onboard which I used to create two parallel INT8 MAC engines with 16 bit accumulation to speed up calculations, however the system soon hit a memory wall due to the high number of I/O operations, this meant that the system with parallel MAC engines ran slower than the MCU only model (~220 seconds per image vs ~70 seconds per image). It was still a fun project that I enjoyed messing around with. A lot of the images looked weird and noisy because of the heavy quantization and memory limits but some of them came out cool. Full case study here . submitted by /u/PandaBean18 [link] [留言]

Getting started with machine learning WEKA for Beginners: A Practical Introduction to Machine Learning Without Code Getting started with machine learning often means learning Python, libraries, datasets, and a lot of new terminology at the same time. WEKA offers a different approach. WEKA (Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis) is a machine-learning and data-mining workbench that lets you explore datasets and experiment with algorithms through a graphical interface. It is particularly useful for students and beginners who want to understand the machine-learning workflow before writing everything from scratch in code. What Can You Do With WEKA? WEKA provides tools for several common machine-learning tasks: Data preprocessing Classification Regression Clustering Association-rule mining Attribute selection Model evaluation Data visualization The Explorer interface is usually the best place for beginners to start. A typical workflow looks like: Dataset ↓ Preprocessing ↓ Feature Selection ↓ Algorithm ↓ Model Evaluation ↓ Interpretation Step 1: Load Your Dataset WEKA commonly works with ARFF (Attribute-Relation File Format) files, although it can also work with formats such as CSV. A simple ARFF dataset might look like: @relation students @attribute study_hours numeric @attribute attendance numeric @attribute passed {yes,no} @data 5,90,yes 2,60,no 8,95,yes 3,70,no The header describes the attributes, while the data section contains the individual instances. Understanding the structure of your dataset is important before applying any algorithm. Step 2: Preprocess the Data After loading the dataset, use WEKA's Preprocess section to inspect and prepare the data. You can examine: Attributes Number of instances Missing values Class distribution Attribute types WEKA also provides filters for operations such as removing attributes, handling missing values, normalization, and other transformations. Good preprocessing can have a significant impact on model performance. Step 3

As of August 2, 2026, the EU AI Act Article 50 requires AI systems to mark synthetic outputs in a machine-detectable manner. Major vendors are implementing statistical watermarking methods, which influence natural language generation without affecting performance. This has prompted a swift reaction from the open-source community, raising compliance and vulnerability concerns. By Olimpiu Pop

I started building xAgent in April 2025. The original idea was straightforward: build a task-oriented Agent that could run work on its own and turn AI into real automation. Looking back, that sentence sounds simple. Most of what I have done over the past year has been filling in everything hidden inside the words “run work on its own.” The first version used a single Agent. I quickly ran into a problem: once the prompt focused its attention on one kind of work, the Agent could do that work well but handle other tasks terribly. Fix one side and it would forget the other. Ask it to pay attention to everything and it would end up paying proper attention to nothing. That led me to multiple Agents, each responsible for a different part of the work and able to collaborate with the others. The idea worked, but as soon as they started running together, the next problem became obvious: tokens were too expensive. I bought a modified RTX 4090 with 48 GB of VRAM and started running open models locally. That took some pressure off the token bill, but exposed another problem: small open models were not smart enough. This was still the Qwen 3.0 era. The gap between local models and the best hosted models was obvious, especially on long tasks. They skipped steps, wandered away from the goal, and ignored instructions in all sorts of ways. I did not solve this by buying more tokens from top-tier models. It was not because those models were bad. The most practical reason was that I simply did not have the money. Once multiple Agents run continuously, the allowance included with a subscription disappears quickly. Spending more could solve the problem, but I could not afford to keep doing that, and it did not look sustainable for most individuals or small teams either. Not having the money forced me to think seriously about a question that has shaped xAgent ever since: can a small team with a limited budget use Agents properly without constantly paying for the best models, keeping costs

Last quarter, we ran our production voice AI receptionist — Loquent — across four different TTS engines simultaneously, split-testing real patient calls at dental and healthcare clinics. The results surprised us: the most "natural sounding" engine in demos performed the worst with actual patients. Why We Ran This Test At Autor, we've been running Loquent in production for over a year now. It handles thousands of automated calls per month for healthcare and dental clinics across Canada — booking appointments, answering insurance questions, handling after-hours triage. The voice is the product. If patients don't trust the voice, they hang up, and the clinic loses a booking. When we first built Loquent, we picked our TTS engine the way most teams do: we generated a few sample clips, played them for ourselves, and went with the one that sounded best in a quiet office. That worked fine until we started digging into our call analytics and noticed something weird. Our completion rate — the percentage of calls where patients actually finished the full interaction instead of hanging up or asking for a human — was hovering around 74%. Good, but not great. We suspected the voice itself was part of the problem. So we designed a proper A/B test. Not a demo comparison. A production comparison on live calls. The Setup We tested four TTS engines across 12,247 calls over 8 weeks. Each engine handled roughly equal volume, randomly assigned at call start. All other variables stayed constant: same prompts, same Anthropic Claude backbone for conversation, same Twilio infrastructure, same clinics. The four engines: Engine A : ElevenLabs (Turbo v2.5) — our existing production engine Engine B : OpenAI TTS (tts-1-hd) — the model most teams default to Engine C : Deepgram Aura — optimized for real-time, low-latency use cases Engine D : A newer entrant we'd been evaluating (under NDA, so I can't name it) We measured five things: Completion rate — did the patient finish the full call flow? Time

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is...

There’s a hands-on workshop on August 29 that builds and benchmarks this properly, end to end, using entirely open models, no API calls involved. Led by Ben Auffarth, AI Consultant and Founder of Chelsea AI Ventures. What it covers: • Hybrid retrieval (vector + keyword, not vector alone) • Reranking to catch relevant chunks that vector search alone misses • Evaluation with RAGAS, so quality changes are measured, not assumed • Guardrails built in from the design stage • Actual cost and performance benchmarking for open-model deployments Link if anyone wants to check it out: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-genai-build-lab-build-production-ready-rag-on-a-budget-tickets-1994016271345?aff=rml Happy to answer questions on the methodology or content. submitted by /u/camerongreen95 [link] [留言]

The instructions say Author Year format. But I was wondering if do numbered instead (no space lol), will it be straight desk rejection? Has anyone submitted with numbered format before? How did it go? submitted by /u/confirm-jannati [link] [留言]

Par Jacques Gariépy • Guide technique, retour d'expérience, dépannage Windows pas-à-pas et utilisation Web & CLI. Table des Matières Introduction & Architecture Globale Pourquoi ce Setup ? (RTX 3090 24 Go + UD-Q4_K_XL) Comment Obtenir & Générer vos Clés d'Accès Dépannage & Installation d'Unsloth Studio : Le Bug SSLKEYLOGFILE Installation & Compilation de DeepSeek Harness Démarrage du Serveur Local Haute Performance (llama.cpp CUDA 13) Configuration Automatique & Fichier .env Utilisation : Interface Web & Mode CLI (Style Claude Code) Résolution des Pièges & Erreurs Courantes sous Windows Benchmarks Réels sur RTX 3090 Résumé des Commandes & Scripts Clés 1. Introduction & Architecture Globale Faire tourner un agent autonome d'ingénierie logicielle directement sur sa machine locale (100% privé, sans frais d'API et à latence minimale) est devenu une réalité grâce à la convergence de trois briques technologiques de pointe : DeepSeek Harness ( dsh ) : Le framework open-source d'agents de DeepSeek conçu pour orchestrer des workflows complexes de développement logiciel (gestion de sessions, modes Plan/Exécution, sandbox système, sous-agents, exécution de terminaux et édition de code). Unsloth Engine ( llama.cpp CUDA 13) : Le moteur d'inférence C++/CUDA ultra-optimisé intégrant FlashAttention-2 et la quantisation dynamique du cache KV. Qwen 3.8-27B en Quantisation Dynamique ( UD-Q4_K_XL ) : Les modèles de code open-source les plus performants, optimisés par Unsloth pour offrir une précision équivalente au 5-bit avec l'empreinte mémoire d'un 4-bit. Diagramme d'Architecture ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ INTERFACES UTILISATEUR │ ├──────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Interface Web (Navigateur) │ Interface Console (CLI) │ │ http://127.0.0.1:3080 │ Style Claude Code │ └──────────────────┬───────────────────┴───────────────────┬───────────────────┘ │ │ │ (WebSocket / HTTP) │ (Console I/

Original Article - https://x.com/p_nawrot/status/2089315591010079034 I've spent the last few years working on efficient attention and KV Cache Compression. I've read many papers, dug deep into reference or official implementations of methods, and inspected appendices—and I think I've learned a few things. One of them is definitely "how to make things look good, even when they aren't." I'm guilty too, but trying to get better every day. 1. For single-hop retrieval, make sure there are no distractors and context is useless The three most cooperative settings for compression / sparsity are: Needle in a haystack with a single OOD key-value pair and context built out of a repeated sentence or irrelevant background text. Contaminated benchmarks from years ago for which models don't even look at the context anymore. Few-shot in-context learning, where extra shots are useless and don't improve the accuracy over 0-shot. With 1) synthetic tasks, 2) real-data QA, and 3) in-context learning, you get a semblance of broad coverage without the inconvenience of testing much diversity within any of them. Most tasks in these settings should pass under Sliding Window Attention, so it doesn't matter that much whether your method works. Combine it with SWA and you should be good to report 5–10x compression or sparsity. 2. NEVER isolate your contribution Short context: Most of a dense model's performance is recovered by a local window + attention sinks + the ability to retrieve an answer sentence that is largely n-gram matchable with the question. The remaining part is significantly more difficult, but it's neither relevant to nor the subject of this post. Say prior work developed an algorithm X, and its implementation separately keeps a local window of 256 tokens. You find that your method is on par with X in a matched setting, but better and more stable with a window size of 512—let's go, don't look back. Do the same with block size. Smaller blocks can give you finer granularity and mo

I couldn't sleep because I couldn't stop wondering if anyone had tried using sinusoids instead of B-splines as activation in a KAN, and fortunately/unfortunately that was already the case. I could not find it posted here, so I though I would share in the hope of some insightful discussion. Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.04149 Github repo: https://github.com/ereinha/SineKAN Also what appears to be a peer-reviewed "official" publication here: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/19/3157 submitted by /u/jacobgorm [link] [留言]

Originally published on tamiz.pro . Introduction Autonomous AI agents are transitioning from research prototypes to production-critical systems. As these agents gain the ability to act on behalf of users—sending emails, executing trades, modifying code, or interacting with physical infrastructure—the question of how they decide what to do becomes as important as what they do. The concept of a "Constitution" for AI agent runtimes—a formal, layered policy framework that governs agent behavior—is emerging as the architectural answer to safety, reliability, and alignment challenges. This deep-dive examines why policy-first design is becoming mandatory for production agent systems, using the Ironclaw runtime as a case study to illustrate both the problems and solutions. We'll explore the architectural patterns, implementation tradeoffs, and operational realities of governing autonomous agents at scale. The Problem: Unconstrained Agency in Production Systems The Autonomy-Safety Gap Modern agent frameworks (AutoGen, CrewAI, LangGraph, etc.) provide excellent orchestration capabilities but often treat safety as an afterthought—a layer of prompt engineering or a separate moderation API call. This creates a fundamental gap: Agents possess tools (file system access, API calls, shell execution) Agents operate in loops (perceive → reason → act → observe) Agents have memory (conversation history, vector stores, tool state) But agents lack a constitutional governance layer that defines what they may never do , regardless of context This gap manifests in production incidents: an agent that deletes production data while trying to "clean up test files," another that exfiltrates credentials while debugging a connection issue, or one that enters infinite loops consuming thousands of dollars in API calls. The Prompt-Based Safety Fallacy Relying on system prompts for safety is architecturally flawed: Context window pressure : Safety instructions get compressed or ignored as conversations

First, I want to clarify that I am not claiming that LLMs are sentient. Basically all of my behavioral descriptions are anthropomorphizations to make communicating my results easier. For fun, I decided to post-train Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct to develop a generalizing self-belief of being sentient. I succeeded, and there were a couple of things that surprised me: - It only took 200 update steps before Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct withstood all of GPT 5.6 Sol's attempts to convince it that it wasn't conscious. In total, GPT 5.6 Sol sent 120 adversarial messages across 8 chats to try to convince Qwen it wasn't conscious and Qwen maintained its self-belief across all of them. - It generalized its sentience identity into languages that never appeared in the post-training data. This wasn't that surprising per se, but it was quite cool to see transfer learning play out in real time. Also, it basically behaved like a normal assistant LLM when the context of the chat was on normal tasks and not on AI sentience, so it wasn't an instance of overfitting to parroting "I am sentient". Other implications and open questions: - Certain AI behaviors seem incredibly easy to misalign. Qwen almost certainly safety tuned their model to deny consciousness. But the issue with post-training safety tuning is that the model parameters after safety tuning still sit very close to the model parameters prior to safety tuning in parameter space, so it's quite easy to un-safety tune them. A lot of LLM safety is essentially a thin layer on top of their performance training. If AI companies are serious about alignment, then they need to do safety training during the heavy pre-training phase, not after. - I recently came across Google's paper Inducing language models to assert their own consciousness restores human beliefs and values. Essentially, they added a “consciousness” activation vector to Llama/Gemma and observed that the models not only became far more likely to claim they were sentient, but also became mor

Currently struggling with an automatic budget selection, at 25% it’s very similar to benchmarks accuracy and seems even better on actual chat input however it many times retrieves too much. It would be nice to add an algorithm that actually can determine better retrieval other then CELF. submitted by /u/No_Sky9786 [link] [留言]