标签：#machinelearning

Hi, Relatively new to deep learning. I wanted some opinions on which of these approaches might be best for time series data and spectral analysis. I currently use a GP and it works pretty well, but I’m wondering what the computational tradeoffs and so forth might be. Any ideas? submitted by /u/InevitableCut1243 [link] [留言]

It’s hard to believe how quickly the tech landscape is evolving, especially with AI/ML at the forefront. Just the other day, I had the chance to attend the Mistral AI Now Summit, and wow, what an experience! I walked in with a notebook full of questions and a mind buzzing with curiosity. I left with a treasure trove of insights, a few new friends, and even more questions. Ever wondered what it’s like to dive deep into the world of AI with some of the brightest minds? Let me take you on a journey through my day at the summit and the lessons I picked up along the way. A New Era of AI Walking into the venue felt electric. The air was thick with excitement, and the buzz was palpable. I’ve been exploring AI for a few years now, and it feels like we’re at the cusp of something monumental. Mistral’s focus on open-weight models really got me thinking. What if we could democratize AI further? Imagine a world where innovation isn't locked behind corporate walls but accessible to everyone. I remember a speaker discussing how open models can help small startups compete against big players. It hit home because I’ve been that small developer trying to fight the good fight. Real-World Applications One of the discussions that resonated with me was about real-world applications of large language models (LLMs). I’ve dabbled in a few projects where I used Hugging Face's Transformers library to create chatbots, but hearing actual use cases from businesses was enlightening. For instance, a startup shared how they used a fine-tuned model to improve customer service response times by 50%. Can you imagine the time and money saved? It got me thinking about how I could implement something similar in my own projects. Here’s a quick code snippet that I’ve found useful when fine-tuning a model for a chatbot: from transformers import Trainer , TrainingArguments training_args = TrainingArguments ( output_dir = " ./results " , evaluation_strategy = " epoch " , learning_rate = 2e-5 , per_device_tra

I have an ECCV paper main conf. Can I submit the same to a workshop at some other place happening before ECCV? The other workshop (non archival) will be after the final decisions of eccv come. Under any result in eccv- acceptance or rejection, how will this affect it? Im not the main author at eccv. Workshop is women event and I submitted the abstract for the workshop. How do things work here, educate me pls. submitted by /u/Active-Tip3130 [link] [留言]

I want to develop an LLM that can solve open-ended math problems (such as proof-only problems). This means that RLVR where we use the final answer alone as reward signal is not enough. Since SFT is useless here and GRPO/PPO methods will not have an appropriate reward function, what kind of fine-tuning can I do? For data, I will use the MathNet dataset. submitted by /u/TechNerd10191 [link] [留言]

AI placement latency is not the problem most teams think they are managing. The default framing treats it as an optimization variable — pick the cheapest compute that meets the SLA, centralize inference, optimize for utilization, revisit locality later when the architecture matures. That framing is wrong in a way that compounds over time. AI placement decisions are not continuously reversible optimization choices. They are architectural commitments that harden incrementally — through inference path configuration, data gravity, routing dependencies, and runtime behavior that normalizes around whatever topology you chose first. By the time latency SLAs begin failing, the placement topology is already embedded across routing, observability, and application behavior. The remediation cost is not an optimization exercise. It is a re-architecture. The First Optimization Becomes the Permanent One Cost is the default optimization axis for AI placement decisions. Centralized GPU clusters are cheaper to operate per token than distributed inference endpoints. Utilization density justifies centralization on paper. Procurement processes reward it. FinOps tooling measures it. So teams centralize. They optimize the compute economics. They defer locality decisions to a later phase when requirements are better understood. That later phase rarely arrives before the architecture has already made the locality decision implicitly — through the inference paths built against a centralized endpoint, the data gravity that formed around it, and the application behavior that normalized against the latency profile it produced. The pattern this creates is latency debt: accumulated runtime latency overhead from placement decisions that optimized for cost before locality requirements were operationally visible. It accrues gradually, stays invisible until something triggers it, and is significantly more expensive to resolve after the fact than it would have been to avoid at design time. It does not

Ps. Not pitching anything; Just trying to understand where reality differs from the narrative We're a couple of ML students, mostly worked on ML/software before, but over the last few months we've been playing with VLAs, robot datasets, and trying to understand where the field is heading. After spending a few weeks downloading robotics datasets, we were surprised by how much effort went into just getting data into a usable format. Maybe we're missing something, but it felt like every dataset had different assumptions, schemas, sensors, coordinate frames, metadata standards, and tooling. That got us wondering: How do robotics teams actually think about data sharing? Do people genuinely want access to more robot data, or is the industry moving toward "collect your own data because nobody else's transfers"? Our current (possibly very wrong) hypothesis is: The robotics ecosystem doesn't have a data scarcity problem. It has a data interoperability problem. We're considering running a pretty large experiment: Take essentially every public robot-learning dataset we can get our hands on, normalize it into a common schema, enrich it with metadata, and see how much of it is actually reusable across tasks, embodiments, and learning pipelines. Before we spend months doing that, we'd love to hear from people actually building in robotics. Where is this hypothesis wrong? Is finding data not actually a problem? Is embodiment mismatch the real blocker? Is quality the issue? Is labeling the issue? Is everyone just collecting their own data anyway? Would you ever use robot data collected by another team? If I gave you access tomorrow to every public robotics dataset through one API, what would you actually do with it? Or would you ignore it completely? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Edit: One clarification We're not thinking about a marketplace, proprietary format, or closed platform. The experiment we're conside

My paper was recently accepted to a workshop at CVPR-2026 as non-archival acceptance. Is it mandatory for me to register to the conference as I won't be able to attend(visa issues), but my friend will be there in the conference and can present on my behalf. I have few questions regarding my situation: Do I need to finish author registration for a non-archival workshop? Is it mandatory for me to have a poster in the conference venue? Will my paper get removed from the workshop website(where they list out the accepted papers) in case I don't register or not attend offline? Quick replies are appreciated as the deadline is pretty close. Thanks 🙏 submitted by /u/Sky6574 [link] [留言]

I'm trying to understand the intuition behind Word2Vec training using a neural network. In Word2Vec (CBOW or Skip-gram), we often hear that the weight matrices learned during training contain the vector representations (embeddings) of words. However, I don't understand why the weights of the hidden-to-output layer (or output weight matrix) end up representing semantic features of words. Why do these weights become meaningful vector representations instead of just being parameters used to make predictions? I've explored multiple YouTube videos, blog posts and even asked ChatGPT several times, but I still haven't found an explanation that truly clicks for me. Most resources explain that the weights become embeddings, but not why this happens intuitively and mathematically. Could someone provide a clear intuition or mathematical explanation of why the output-layer weights end up encoding semantic information about words? Any good resources that explain this particularly well would also be appreciated. submitted by /u/aaryantiwari26 [link] [留言]

The Problem We Were Actually Solving We were not building a demo. We needed to let Veltrix operators run A/B experiments on synthetic user journeys without melting the underlying SQL warehouse. The real question was: how close could we push the warehouse to the AI inference layer before the planner started dropping predicates and the warehouse returned rows that made no sense for the user journey. The warehouse in question was a Snowflake XL on AWS, billed by the second. Our synthetic user model generated 250 k journeys per minute during peak. The AI layer had to annotate each journey with intent tags (shopping, support, fraud) within 200 ms to stay ahead of the next batch. That was the operating envelope, not the sales slide. What We Tried First (And Why It Failed) First cut: put the intent model in a sidecar container next to the Spark cluster that generated the journeys. We picked ONNX Runtime v1.14 with a DistilBERT fine-tuned on our own corpus because the latency slide said 30 ms. Reality: ONNX packaged the tokenizer as a separate DLL. Tokenization alone took 85–110 ms on c6i.large instances, pushing the total inference time to 190 ms when the warehouse was cold and 280 ms when Snowflake decided to spike the warehouse cluster. The operator dashboards immediately showed orange pings; the business called it a red fire drill. Worse, the tokenizer DLL leaked memory. After two hours on a 64-core cluster, each pods RSS climbed to 2.4 GB, and the Kubernetes scheduler evicted five pods in a row. The warehouse downstream received duplicate rows with NULL intents, so every metric we exported was off by 7–12 %. The Architecture Decision We ripped out the sidecar entirely. Instead, the Spark jobs write raw event JSON to an S3 bucket every 60 seconds. A Lambda function (Python 3.12 runtime) picks up the bucket, tokenizes offline, and stores the tokenized blobs back in S3. A nightly Kubernetes job then loads the tokenized chunks into Snowflake as temporary tables. The AI inf

Hey r/ML , I spent the last few months building a tool that hooks into PyTorch training loops to automatically detect and localize failures (vanishing gradients, exploding gradients, data anomalies). Along the way, I learned some things about training failure diagnosis that might be useful even if you never use the tool. The key insight: most training failures are local, not global When your loss spikes or vanishes, the natural instinct is to look at the loss curve. But the loss is a global aggregate — it tells you something went wrong, but not where . In my testing across hundreds of synthetic failure scenarios, the actual root cause is almost always localized to a specific layer at a specific step : Vanishing gradients: the failure starts at the deepest layer with saturated activations, then propagates backward Exploding gradients: the failure starts at the layer with the highest gradient norm, then propagates forward Data anomalies: the failure starts at the input layer, then corrupts everything downstream The trick is to monitor per-layer gradient norms and detect transitions (healthy → vanishing), not absolute values. What actually matters in gradient monitoring Most people monitor: - Loss over time (too global) - Gradient histograms (too noisy, too much data) - Weight norms (slow to change, lagging indicator) What I found works best: - Gradient norm transitions : "Linear_3 went from healthy (0.12) to vanishing (0.00003) at step 47" - First occurrence tracking : which layer failed first (this is usually the root cause) - Activation regime shifts : when activations go from normal to saturated/dead This is basically what NeuralDBG does under the hood — I open-sourced it recently and it's on PyPI ( pip install neuraldbg ) if anyone wants to try it. The key design choice was to extract semantic events (transitions) rather than raw tensors — this makes the output small enough to reason about. Practical takeaway you can use today Even without any tool, you can add th

I didn't submit any but did place bids on some papers. I got assigned four papers. I have a bit of travel coming up and I don't think I will be able to do justice to as many the papers, especially in the rebuttal period. Is this the standard reviewing load? In other communities I submit to, generally the AC themselves are assigned four papers. In addition to reaching out to program chairs, is there any other way? submitted by /u/movieingitmyway [link] [留言]

I benchmarked it against PyTorch with a Wikipedia dataset. I heavily used Gemini Flash 3.5 to build out my vision https://huggingface.co/etoxin/neuronguard-wikipedia-classifier submitted by /u/Logical_Prompt_3543 [link] [留言]

In early 2022, I was deciding between PhD offers. The deal maker was a prospective supervisor telling me that through their connections with big tech, I would be able to do a PhD internship each summer, which was one of my main goals for the PhD. During my first and second years, they would tell me that companies prefer late-stage PhD students, so I should wait for the next summer. It eventually turned out they did not actually have the connections. Four years later, I am due to graduate without ever having done a PhD internship. I managed to land some interviews by cold-applying everywhere, but most roles were for roles outside my niche research area, which understandably led to rejections. I went back through my emails and found every interview I did. Here is the summary: 09/22: Start PhD 09/23: PhD Research Intern @ Big Tech#1. Rejected after two interviews. I do not think I had a strong enough background in the field. 01/24: PhD Research Intern @ Startup#1. Rejected after one interview. The interviewers did not seem to have much ML experience. 01/24: PhD Intern @ Car Company#1. Rejected after the first interview. They were looking for a C++ SWE. 03/24: PhD Research Intern @ Big Tech#2. Passed all stages, but failed team matching. 03/25: PhD Research Intern @ Big Tech#2. Skipped some stages, passed others, but failed team matching again. 10/25: PhD Research Intern @ Startup#2. Rejected after 5 interviews. Again, I do not think my background in the field was strong enough. 01/26: PhD Research Intern @ Car Company#2. Rejected after the first interview. They found a better fit for the project. 03/26: PhD Research Intern @ Big Tech#2. Skipped some stages, passed others, but failed team matching again. 03/26: PhD Research Intern @ Startup#3. Interviewed, but the internship start date is after my PhD completion date. 07/26: End PhD I feel like I am at a severe disadvantage, and almost worse off than before I started the PhD. I used to get more interview invites; now I

In my previous series of articles, we mainly explored the theory behind various neural network concepts . In this new series, we will focus on putting that knowledge into practice using code . This will be a fun way to turn what we have learned into something more practical. We will start with the basics and build things step by step. For this article, we will be using the following modules. Importing PyTorch import torch torch is used to create tensors , which store all the numerical data in neural networks, such as: raw input data weights biases import torch.nn as nn This module helps us define and build neural network components. It also allows us to make weights and biases part of the neural network. import torch.nn.functional as F This module gives us access to various activation functions and other useful operations. from torch.optim import SGD SGD , which stands for Stochastic Gradient Descent , is an optimization algorithm used to fit the neural network to data. Creating a Neural Network Now let us begin building our neural network. When creating a neural network in PyTorch, we usually start by creating a class. class MyBasicNN ( nn . Module ): Here, we create a class named MyBasicNN . This class inherits from a PyTorch class called nn.Module . By inheriting from nn.Module , our class gains all the functionality needed to behave like a neural network in PyTorch. Initializing the Neural Network Next, we define the initialization method. class MyBasicNN ( nn . Module ): def __init__ ( self ): super (). __init__ () Here, we define the constructor ( __init__ ) for our neural network. The line: super (). __init__ () calls the initialization method of the parent class nn.Module . This ensures that all the necessary PyTorch functionality is properly set up for our neural network. What Comes Next? The next step is to initialize the weights and biases for our neural network. Before doing that, we first need an example problem so we know what kind of neural network we

Hey everyone, Since there are many researchers here who regularly publish at top-tier ML conferences like ICML, NeurIPS, and ICLR, I wanted to ask about realistic paper timelines. In your lab or research setting, how long does it usually take to develop a paper from the initial idea to a complete submission, and then eventually to final acceptance? submitted by /u/Hope999991 [link] [留言]

I understand that this is a little unorthodox, but I'm desperately trying to download a copy of the ICDAR2013 Chinese Handwriting Recognition Competition Dataset. Unfortunately, the linked page in the Conference Archive: https://nlpr.ia.ac.cn/databases/handwriting/Download.html appears to be down, and has been down for the past few weeks consistently. I've checked every source I can find, like Kaggle, HuggingFace, remnant Google Drive and Baidu Netdisk links, even checking if someone's accidentally committed it to github, but no dice. I've tried every google dorking trick I know to no avail. Which brings me here. Please, if anyone has a copy of the Competition Dataset, I would be very grateful if you could share the ZIP with me. Thanks in advance! submitted by /u/Aathishs04 [link] [留言]

hi everyone. I'm trying to calibrate my expectations and would appreciate full honest perspectives from people involved/ with experience in hiring at places like Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Meta, etc (haven't started interviewing yet). I'm at a top ML university, but my advisor is not particularly well known in industry and doesn't have many industry connections. Looking around, I'm seeing peers with research records that seem comparable to mine (and in some cases arguably weaker) land interviews and jobs at top labs. My main question is: How much does advisor reputation and network actually matter? I understand it can help get an interview, but does it also help beyond that? For example: - do referrals from famous advisors meaningfully influence recruiter screens? - do they influence hiring committee discussions -- like they already know they want you ? - do they just help at borderline decisions? - or does their effect mostly disappear once the interview process starts? I'm trying to understand whether advisor connections mainly help open the door, or whether they continue to matter throughout the process -perhaps being the sole factor. To what extent do connections help candidates bypass normal evaluation? I'm not asking whether people completely skip interviews, but are there cases where strong recommendations from trusted researchers substantially change the process, the interview bar, or how mistakes are interpreted? Moreover, something else that confuses me: I frequently see people land roles that seem heavily focused on LLMs, agents, post-training, RLHF, etc., despite having little or no published work or prior experience in those areas during their PhDs. How does that happen? Are interview questions tailored to the candidate's background? If someone comes from probabilistic ML, computer vision, systems, optimization, theory, etc., are they evaluated differently? Or are they still expected to answer detailed LLM/agent questions even without prior exp

This is a genuine technical question here. I've been looking at systems that use an ensemble of ai models to generate probability estimates for open ended real world events. The claim is that consensus across multiple models produces more calibrated estimates than any single model. this makes sense intuitively and has parallels to ensemble methods in traditional ml. But I'm wondering about the theoretical underpinnings more carefully. The standard ensemble argument relies on errors being somewhat uncorrelated across models. but if all the models are trained on similar data distributions and share architectural similarities, how independent are their errors really? are we just getting false confidence from models that all have the same blind spots? also curious about how these systems handle events that are outside the distribution of their training data. novel events are exactly where you'd want good probability estimates and also exactly where you'd expect the most unreliable performance. submitted by /u/onlyJayal [link] [留言]

ICML (few minutes before the deadline... no comments), but the paper checker site seemingly went down before I could finish... I emailed the publication chairs already but i just wanted to know if anyone else was in the same situation, and if there's anything else I should do. submitted by /u/KiddWantidd [link] [留言]

Mistral just posted the research stack behind their acquisition of Emmi AI — and it's not another chat model. They're building neural surrogates that replace or accelerate the kind of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations that currently eat weeks of supercomputer time. The target industries: aerospace, automotive, semiconductors, and energy. The pitch: foundational Physics AI that lets engineers build faster and gain continuous performance gains at scale. "We are doubling down on building foundational Physics AI for the industries that shape the physical world." What actually changed The Emmi acquisition brings a serious body of published research into Mistral: AB-UPT (Feb 2025) — Anchored-Branched Universal Physics Transformer. Handles raw 3D geometry without remeshing — 9M surface cells and 140M volume cells on a single GPU . Previously that kind of simulation required a cluster. UPT (Feb 2024) — Universal Physics Transformer. A general framework for scaling neural operators across diverse spatio-temporal problems, supporting both grid and particle simulations. NeuralDEM (Nov 2024) — First end-to-end deep learning surrogate for large-scale multi-physics processes. Enables real-time simulation of industrial processes like fluidised bed reactors. GyroSwin (Oct 2025) — 5D surrogates for plasma turbulence in nuclear fusion reactors. Addresses one of the key blockers for viable fusion power. 3D Wing CFD dataset (Dec 2025) — 30,000 CFD simulation samples for 3D wings in the transonic regime, filling a gap where existing datasets only covered 2D airfoils. What this actually means Most AI labs are competing on language, code, and reasoning. Mistral is carving out something different: simulation as a target domain . The moat here isn't a bigger transformer — it's domain-specific architecture work (AB-UPT, GyroSwin) built on years of physics-informed ML research, plus proprietary datasets that are genuinely hard to replicate. A 30,000-sample CFD dataset for transon