标签：#AR

I ported MoE expert expansion to llama.cpp 🚀 Run MoE models with MORE routed experts than the native top-K (8->x), adaptive threshold, 99→50% influence decay, layer range. Runtime-only, all backends. Tested on Qwen 3.6 35B A4B+ https://github.com/vagrillo/llama.cpp/blob/moe-expansion/docs/moe-expansion.md submitted by /u/Specific-Tax-6700 [link] [留言]

Tri-band routers have, unsurprisingly, one more band than dual-band routers have. But what does this mean in practice?

Hello all, TL;DR: point density, not model architecture, was the real bottleneck for a 5-class radar-only classifier on RadarScenes. Going from 1 to 5 points per instance roughly doubles macro F1 (0.381 → 0.764), while a whole set of architecture and feature changes all landed inside a measured noise floor. Real failure case attached: a stationary two-wheeler misread as a pedestrian. Setup I'm a perception / radar signal processing engineer getting into ML on radar data. Trained a 5-class classifier (car, large_vehicle, two_wheeler, pedestrian, pedestrian_group) on RadarScenes radar point clouds only, no camera or lidar. Per-instance histogram (16 bins) encoding into a 3-layer MLP. Main result: point density is the ceiling Macro F1 goes from 0.381 to 0.764 just by increasing points per instance from 1 to 5. Same trained model, nothing else changed. Why: a single point can't carry a size or velocity-spread signature. large_vehicle's F1 is 0.037 at n=1 vs 0.995 at n=11+. Some classes still work at n=1 (car separates cleanly on RCS/Doppler alone), others don't (two_wheeler and pedestrian collapse to the same near-zero-velocity signature when sparse). Ablation studies Wider/deeper networks, six alternative feature encodings, different bin edges, all landed inside the noise floor I measured with a 6-fold split sensitivity check (same train/val/test proportions, sequences reassigned per fold). Closest thing to an exception: swapping the histogram for explicit per-instance statistics (mean/median/std) actually made things slightly worse (0.658 vs baseline's 0.686), and pedestrian's own F1 fell outside its class-specific noise floor. Data caveats RadarScenes is naturalistically collected, not balanced: common classes get broad coverage, rare ones don't. two_wheeler merges two physically different speed regimes (bicycle vs a much rarer motorized variant). large_vehicle merges large_vehicle/truck/train/bus, RadarScenes' own recommended scheme, mostly forced by data scarcity i

I feel that reproducibility is now a lost cause in machine learning research for three reasons: Many research is moving towards the physical AI territory, where you need expensive hardwares or even entire laboratories with high-speed cameras, in order to perform an experiment. You truly have no idea if the experiment can be reproduced and have to trust the demo. But demos are not perfectly reliable. Plus people are incentivized to only show the part of the demo that works. The entire system can fall apart the moment the recording stops. You have big AI companies releasing various tools, which they claim to solve a host of problems with certain amount of accuracy or efficiency. Unless you work at those companies there is really no proof of that and you will have to take their words on it. They have strong financial incentive to blow-up those figures. There is no solid way to check it either because the problem that they solve are so vague and subjective. We need to address the elephant in the room which is that people are incentivized to produce non-reproducible work to prevent their lunch being eaten by their competitors or looking bad. That's why some of us will probably never get a reply when we email the authors for their code. So what now? Maybe everything will be OK because we can contrast it with scientific progress in earlier parts of history, e.g., building the atomic bomb or sending people to the moon. These projects had low "outside reproducibility" but high "internal reproducibility". Plus all these work were mathematical in nature and carefully checked. But I don't think many areas of machine learning research is like that. What do you think? Should reproducibility be abandoned? If not how is it best implemented going forward? submitted by /u/NeighborhoodFatCat [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/ThereWas [link] [留言]

The Uber founder has said that Atoms will allow him to complete "unfinished business."

If you use agentic workflows with custom skills or rules (Cursor rules, Claude Code slash commands, OpenCode, etc.), you have probably run into the routing trade-off: Stuff every skill definition into the system prompt (destroys your context window and degrades instruction-following). Use an LLM router turn to classify the user prompt (costs money, wastes 1,000+ tokens, and adds 2+ seconds of network latency). To solve this, I built Routed ; an open-source, local-first hybrid router for agent skills that runs 100% offline on your CPU. GitHub: https://github.com/bshea-1/Routed License: MIT https://i.redd.it/5ca68gffgxnh1.gif How it Works Under The Hood Routed indexes your installed skill directories and evaluates prompts through a 4-part hybrid scoring pipeline: * Dense Vector Embeddings (60%): Runs quantized ONNX models (Arctic Embed S / MiniLM) locally on CPU. * Lexical BM25 (25%): Okapi BM25 for strict keyword relevance. * Exact / Alias Match (10%): Direct command and alias matching. * Metadata (5%): Recency and usage heuristics. The entire lookup completes in under 20ms without sending a single byte of prompt data over the wire. Supported Environments Routed auto-detects and injects adapters into: Cursor, Claude Code, LM Studio, Ollama, Antigravity IDE, Windsurf, OpenCode, Continue, Codex, and I just dropped support for MCP Servers!! And although v1.0 dropped last night, I just shipped v1.1.0 with two major additions based on early feedback: Model Context Protocol (MCP) Server ( routed mcp ): Instead of loading 20+ tool schemas into your GPU's context window, your local model only sees a single route_skill tool. Routed executes on CPU, selects the exact skill needed, and injects only that schema on demand. Native Multilingual Understanding: The embedding pipeline now natively understands input across 100+ languages (German, Spanish, French, Japanese, etc.) and automatically decomposes compound nouns (like German Speicherleck ), mapping prompts directly to the cor

AACL-IJCNLP 2026 acceptance results will be released in a few hours. Feel free to share your thoughts and feelings! How did you do? submitted by /u/Starscream-11813 [link] [留言]

Humanistic Architecture Learning to See Problems Differently I had the opportunity to attend a class called “Humanistic Architecture” by Mr. Chakrit Riddhagni. The class was about applying humanistic principles to software development . Before talking about what I learned, I would like to share a little about my own perspective on software development. Personally, I have a quote and a belief about software development: it is both a science and an art. I see software development as something that has an artistic side, while being grounded in logic, with almost endless possibilities. “Crafting software requires artistry, guided by imagination, grounded in logic, endlessly enduring.” This quote has been one of my inspirations since I started working as a developer. What I mean by this is that I have always liked thinking about software development as a kind of literature . We are not simply writing code. We are solving problems. We are developing and creating something to solve a problem that either we or our customers are facing. Because of this, as a developer, I naturally work with problems every day. But… I never really thought much deeper about what a “problem” actually is. Usually, when we solve a problem for a customer or develop software for them, we receive an issue or a scope of work and then start working on it. We know that something is a problem, so we focus on solving it. But we do not always stop and ask What is the actual structure of this problem ? Is this really the problem? And does the solution we are building actually address the problem we are trying to solve? That changed when I attended the “Humanistic Architecture” class. One of the biggest things I gained from this class was a new perspective and a set of tools for defining what a “problem” really is. Anatomy of a Problem We can look at a problem through the Anatomy of a Problem , which consists of three parts: Current State — where we are now Gap — the difference between where we are and wher

A random game is easier to debug when the same inputs produce the same result. In HoopTrait, a browser basketball project, the Lab mode combines eight selected traits and generates a fictional career. The interesting engineering problem is keeping replay, sharing and validation consistent. This is a technical development note, not a claim that a game score predicts an athlete's real performance. Store the decisions, not just the result The Lab state records a seed, a dataset version and an ordered list of actions. An action is a pick or a reroll. Replaying those actions reconstructs the build. A seed alone is not a complete replay contract: changing the player pool or its order can change a seeded draw. A dataset version therefore matters alongside the random seed. For a future release, the same principle should apply to changes in the rules themselves. Test invariants across many runs The Lab test suite iterates through 1,000 seeds. For each seed it shuffles the order of the eight skills, uses the two allowed rerolls, and completes a build. It checks that: Eight distinct players were selected. All eight traits are present, and no player remains to be drawn after completion. The overall game score stays between 0 and 99 and matches the shared rating function. Packing and unpacking the share state returns the original state. Recomputing the fictional career returns the same output. The ten simulated seasons sum to the displayed career earnings. Those assertions catch different problems. A stable score does not prove that a shared link reproduces the same selections. A complete build does not prove that its season totals add up. Reject impossible histories A share payload is untrusted input, even in a client-side game. Negative or fractional seeds, duplicate skill picks, a third reroll, unknown action types, a mismatched dataset version and actions after completion are rejected. The tests also cover malformed encoded payloads and unexpected fields. Local state is usef

Samsung's Z Fold series has improved the foldable phone form factor over time, but there remains an issue that the rumored iPhone Ultra may not remedy.

Overview In this article, I'll introduce the concept of Multi-Version Concurrency Control (MVCC) and explain how Postgres implements this protocol across different isolation levels. I'm assuming you already have a basic understanding of isolation levels, database locks, and concurrency in general. I won't cover those concepts here, so if you're not familiar with them, I highly recommend checking out A Straightforward Guide for Isolation Levels first before continuing. The goal of this article is to help you understand: What Multi-Version Concurrency Control is How Postgres implements MVCC across different isolation levels Multi-Version Concurrency Control High-Level Concept The idea behind MVCC is simple: it's a protocol designed to accomplish one goal — when two or more transactions run concurrently on the same data, the end result should look as if those transactions ran one after another, in sequence. Take a look at the diagram above. Two transactions are running concurrently, and we want the end result to look as if either the first transaction ran and committed before the second one started, or vice versa. MVCC guarantees there are only two possible outcomes — never a third. But in reality, these transactions are running at the same time, so this is exactly the core idea of MVCC: it's a protocol that gives us this guarantee even though the transactions genuinely overlap in time. Note that other protocols aim for the same goal, like Two-Phase Locking and Optimistic Concurrency Control. They all take different approaches, but they're all working toward the same thing. The core idea of MVCC is that whenever a transaction updates a row, it doesn't mutate the value in place. Instead, it creates a new record as the latest version and links it back to the old version. After the update, the row has a new version, and the old version is never changed. This version chain exists per record — every update to a row creates a new version, and since each version is linked to

Modern price monitoring systems need to do more than tell you that a price changed. A single abnormal listing, a scraped error, or a temporary outlier can make a traditional threshold-based detector fire an alert when nothing meaningful happened. In this project, I built a lightweight real-time price anomaly detector in Python that combines: A rolling median baseline Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) Robust Z-scores Short-term percentage returns Trend confirmation Alert cooldowns The goal is simple: detect meaningful price movements without overreacting to noisy observations. Note: This project monitors retail prices from Google Shopping results through SerpApi. It is a retail-price monitoring example, not a financial exchange-data feed. What we're building The pipeline looks like this: ┌──────────────────────┐ │ SerpApi / Shopping │ └──────────┬───────────┘ │ ▼ ┌──────────────────┐ │ Price Extraction │ │ + Validation │ └────────┬─────────┘ │ ▼ ┌────────────────────┐ │ Rolling Price │ │ History │ └────────┬───────────┘ │ ┌───────────┼───────────┐ ▼ ▼ ▼ Median MAD Return % │ │ │ └───────────┼───────────┘ ▼ Robust Z-score │ ▼ Trend Confirmation │ ▼ Signal Engine │ ▼ Alert Cooldown The implementation is intentionally small and interpretable. The complete engine is built around a single PriceAlertEngine class and a compact AnomalyResult data structure. Why not just use standard deviation? A common first implementation is: price > mean + 3 * standard_deviation The problem is that standard deviation is sensitive to extreme observations. Suppose your historical prices are: 990, 995, 999, 1001, 1005 Then one bad observation such as: 1500 can distort the mean and standard deviation. That can move your detection boundary away from the actual market behavior you are trying to model. For a noisy retail environment, a more robust baseline is useful. That's where median and Median Absolute Deviation come in. 1. Building a rolling median baseline Instead of storing an unlimited stre

With the right setup, an old, unused phone can be repurposed into a security camera. Even better? It's free.

In December 2024, Google quietly updated its closed testing rules for personal developer Console accounts. For months, indie developers had to recruit at least 20 testers to keep their app opted in for 14 consecutive days before applying for production access. Under the revised guidelines, that threshold dropped from 20 to 12 testers. Understanding the nuances of the Google Play 20 testers vs 12 testers shift helps you plan your release schedule accurately without running into unexpected delays during Google Play Console verification. While lowering the number by eight testers sounds like a major relief, the core requirements behind closed testing have not changed. Google still enforces a strict 14 consecutive day duration, and the Play Console continues to monitor tester retention and engagement. A lower numerical requirement means less logistical hassle, but maintaining a stable group of committed testers remains the primary hurdle for independent developers. The Policy Shift: From 20 to 12 Testers Google originally introduced mandatory closed testing in November 2023 to improve app quality and curb low-effort submissions on the Play Store. Initially, all new personal accounts registered on or after November 13, 2023, were required to run a closed test with at least 20 opted-in testers for 14 days without interruption. After roughly a year of developer feedback regarding how difficult it was for solo creators to find 20 reliable participants, Google reduced the requirement to 12 testers in December 2024. It is crucial to understand who this rule applies to. The requirement exclusively targets personal developer accounts created on or after November 13, 2023. If you operate an organization or business developer account, or if your personal account was registered before November 13, 2023, you are currently exempt from this mandatory closed testing gate. However, if you fall under the new personal account category, reaching 12 continuous opt-ins is a strict prerequis

Google has open-sourced Mantis, an AI-agent framework designed to automate the software vulnerability lifecycle, from identifying and validating vulnerabilities to reproducing and fixing them. Google says it developed Mantis to address the high rate of false positives and hallucinated vulnerabilities produced by conventional AI-powered code scanning. By Sergio De Simone

The wrong bag can aggravate you every single day. These WIRED-tested picks get comfort, capacity, and organization just right.

Excitement I wanted to share my excitement of forcing myself to build without using AI. I...

Take full control of your desktop alerts by sending yourself recurring reminders and custom notifications triggered by specific events.