34,626 results · Most relevant
Pin the Harbor evaluation harness to one version to preserve comparability. Changing the harness version changes a variable and degrades score comparability even if the new version has a bug — you are at least testing all the models with the same bug. Switching to a new benchmark version breaks score comparability and forces retesting all models you already did.
Users are not locked into Claude Code or Codex; any coding agent can be connected to the Arize skill. The core benefit is that the skill lets the agent pull down information from traces so fixes are grounded in where and why something failed, not just the knowledge that the output is wrong.
The skill provides the coding agent access to codebase information, APM tickets, APM logs, JIRA tickets, and Arize traces. The recommendation is to bring all of this data — plus evals and human annotations — into the agent so it can reason about what changes to make in the failing area, such as correcting tool calls so the agent goes down the right pathways.
Setting up the CLI and skills takes just a couple of steps and gives your coding agent access to a bunch of different tools. Once set up, the coding agent can pull down traces, understand what's going wrong with the agent, look at existing evaluations and annotations, do its own analysis, and come back with fix suggestions. From within the coding agent you can pull down traces, build out datasets, run experiments, and run evaluations — the full gamut of the experience.
To speed up debugging, pull in Arize traces to get all the information of what your agent did, pull in your evaluations to see where things actually went wrong, bring in annotations from humans for more information on where things could go right, bring in your actual APM traces to check whether the system is up or down, and bring in your code base so you can understand what changes to make — e.g., calling the right tools and fixing broken tools — based on where the failure occurred.
Peter Werry recommends using an allow list (deny by default) of allowed operators and potentially allowed fields when sanitizing LLM output.
The host recommends attacking acceleration first when learning to sprint, since most sports rarely express max speed (only wingers covering 40-50m breaks benefit). Taking huge long strides in the first 5-10 meters prevents generating enough horizontal force; athletes need more steps (higher cadence) in the initial phase instead.
Host's endorsed heuristic with a stated exception for wingers
For someone who hasn't run in years, begin with very basic baseline plyometrics and keep all running to very short distances.
Fix 1: stay forward enough for longer — standing up immediately after initiating a sprint means you can't get enough horizontal force into the ground. Fix 2: take more steps in the initial 5-10 meters instead of huge semi-lunge strides, even though long strides feel like pushing hard. Fix 3: keep on the train track — avoid lateral sway and driving out to the side each step, especially for bigger athletes.
What is important is to match your bottleneck rather than simply going with a lever that has worked before. For this pipeline the speaker chooses async IO for fetching images and Ray Actors as the multiprocessing library for processors. Ray Actors are essentially the same as general processes but offer an API to communicate across workers, so you don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Disaggregate the process so workers are spread across multiple nodes, doing their own image processing and storing, retrieved lazily just-in-time by DP ranks. Two flags to tune for disaggregation: zero-copy retrieval and a spread scheduling mechanism.
Spread data-processing workers across multiple nodes so they do their own image processing and storing, with results retrieved lazily just-in-time by data parallel ranks.
Use a background thread that fills up a queue ahead of time and always stays ahead of the consumer, so the trainer is never bottlenecked on requesting data. The producer should produce examples at a multiplier of the consumer's rate; making sure your producer is always ahead of your consumer will pay great dividends.
Use an object store (a Ray convenience method) where each sample carries an object reference (a pointer to the data) instead of the data itself. With an object store, the tensor never round trips to the head node, and Megatron DP ranks can directly call the array store to fetch data as needed. The Ray store also eliminated an extraneous put object call that the prefetcher solution had.
You need a syncing layer on top of MCP live lookups for anything you want to semantically question or go deeper into — sync a copy of the data locally into a vector database, which AI can build relatively easily. If you need any form of semantic lookup or analysis beyond a simple lookup — anything requiring looking across a vast data set — you have to sync a copy. Static, single-entity lookups (e.g., asking Stripe a question about a specific customer or taking a single action) can remain live MCP calls.
Pedro Lopez recommends OAuth for authenticating the MCP server itself: a connect button spins up the OAuth flow where the user signs in and accepts privileges.
After trial and error, Pedro Lopez's team keeps tool counts small, exposing only describe (schema for querying) and execute (read/write/delete) for connector execution.
Pedro Lopez recommends exposing CLI inputs through flags, environment variables, and config files instead of interactive prompts, so setup can happen out of band.
Anders Swanson recommends using a database for the memory layer rather than building your own database on top of files: building a memory layer on files leads to building your own database, so you could just use a database instead. With one database query connection in a multi-model database, you can do hybrid search and return the data back.
endorsed
Anders Swanson recommends choosing a multi-model database for the memory layer so rows, columns, vector embeddings, full text search, relational entities, graphs, episodes, and facts live in one consolidated place.
endorsed
Use saved training trajectories and a controlled intervention to explain a failure, separating equilibrium theory from observed empirical stability.
Demonstrate all 3 repaired bugs and defend why a passed gradient check is necessary but not sufficient for generalization.
Use the tractable fixture and posterior predictive results to separate approximation, sampling and model errors; justify one revised modeling assumption.
Choose sources → to get a library of your own and a daily brief.
Map each implemented component to the original paper and explain 2 reduced-model failure modes without claiming full-scale reproduction.
Use calibration and shift measurements to justify a monitoring or abstention threshold, and give an explicit confounding counterexample to causal feature-attribution claims.
Defend a causal claim or refusal using the DAG, numerical estimates and a counterexample showing why predictive model fit cannot establish identification.
