标签：#machinelearning

What is up with the EMNLP prices? What is the actual price for attending as a student with one accepted paper? If I register now in August, is it $350 or $550? Congratulations to everyone accepted! https://preview.redd.it/to16g93h7rkh1.png?width=667&format=png&auto=webp&s=566162320e8adc161ab3a3772988c6ea64d8be6d submitted by /u/No_Sky9786 [link] [留言]

Today I'm releasing Pythonaibrain-NLP 0.2.0 , the latest public release of my Python NLP framework. The package is now available on PyPI, and the complete source code, documentation, architecture notes, examples, and tests are available on GitHub. PyPI: https://pypi.org/project/Pythonaibrain-NLP/ GitHub: https://github.com/DivyanshuSinha136/Pythonaibrain-NLP Install it with: pip install pythonaibrain-nlp Why another NLP framework? Pythonaibrain-NLP was built around a different idea. Instead of making a transformer the center of everything, I wanted to build a more structured NLP system where understanding, dialogue state, retrieval, and generation are explicit components of the architecture . The current system combines: Neural intent classification Slot filling Dialogue context Retrieval-augmented responses Neural language generation A controllable NLG architecture Standalone NLU and NLG APIs The goal isn't to replace every modern NLP architecture. The goal is to provide a structured, understandable, trainable NLP pipeline that can be integrated into Python applications. The architecture The core pipeline is: User Input │ ▼ ┌─────────────┐ │ NLU │ │ │ │ Intent │ │ + Slots │ └──────┬──────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────┐ │ Dialogue State │ │ + Context │ └────────┬────────┘ │ ┌───────┴────────┐ ▼ ▼ Function/API RAG Dispatch Retrieval │ │ └───────┬────────┘ ▼ ┌─────────────┐ │ NLG │ │ SC-LSTM │ └──────┬──────┘ │ ▼ Response This separation makes each stage independently accessible and easier to experiment with. NLU The NLU subsystem uses a joint neural architecture for: Intent classification + slot tagging The model is designed to understand both what the user wants and which pieces of information are present in the input . For example, a request such as: "Book a flight to Delhi tomorrow" can be represented through an intent together with structured slot information rather than treating the entire sentence as an opaque classification problem. This structured representation ca

Classic Machine Learning Through the Eyes of an SRE — Part 7 Picture a client health metric that has been flat at 2 out of 10 for six months. Ask PCA to compress your client-health data and that metric will contribute almost nothing to the directions PCA decides to keep. Not because PCA is broken. Because PCA treats variance as importance, and a signal that barely moves contributes almost no variance. Reduce the data far enough and the independent information it carried is simply not there anymore. But a CSAT frozen at 2/10 is not noise. It is a crisis nobody is escalating. And after compression, it may no longer be available to anything downstream. That is the bet, and in ops data it is frequently wrong. The critical signals are often the quiet ones. There is a cheaper version of the same failure that catches most people first. PCA measures variance in whatever units your features happen to be in, so a metric ranging from 0 to 10,000 can dominate one ranging from 1 to 5 purely because it is bigger. Standardize before you compress, or your first principal component may just be an elaborate way of saying "ticket count." Same class of bug as unscaled features in K-Means and SVM, and it fails just as quietly. What PCA actually is Third answer-finding strategy in the unsupervised set, using the same shorthand as the last two articles. K-Means SEARCHES: iterate and hope. DBSCAN DEFINES: declare a rule and traverse. PCA SOLVES: an eigendecomposition or SVD gives a direct solution rather than an iterative local search. No convergence to babysit, no restarts, no local optima to escape. Two caveats on the word "direct," both worth knowing. Many libraries will use randomized SVD on large matrices, which is approximate and stochastic. And even with an exact solver, eigenvectors are only defined up to sign, so a component can come back inverted between runs or across implementations. The variance explained is identical either way, which is precisely why nobody notices. Hold ont

How many times have you stared at a plate of Gong Bao Chicken or a complex Mediterranean salad and wondered, "How many calories are actually in here?" Traditional calorie tracking apps are tedious, requiring you to manually weigh ingredients and search through messy databases. But with the rise of multimodal AI , specifically the GPT-4o Vision API , we can now transform a simple photo into a detailed nutritional breakdown in seconds. In this tutorial, we are building a Computer Vision Nutrition Engine that leverages GPT-4o to identify ingredients, estimate portions, and calculate macronutrients with surprising accuracy. By using Few-shot Prompting and structured data validation with Pydantic , we’ll solve the age-old problem of identifying "hidden" ingredients in complex cuisines. Whether you're interested in AI for health or mastering multimodal LLM pipelines , this guide is for you! The Architecture 🏗️ The system logic is straightforward but powerful. We take an image input, process it through the GPT-4o vision model using a specialized system prompt, and enforce a strict JSON schema output for our frontend to consume. graph TD A[User Uploads Food Image] --> B[Streamlit Frontend] B --> C{FastAPI/Python Logic} C --> D[GPT-4o Vision API] D --> E[Few-Shot Prompting Strategy] E --> F[Pydantic Structured Output] F --> G[Calorie & Nutrient Dashboard] G --> H[User Review & Log] Prerequisites 🛠️ To follow along, you'll need: Python 3.9+ OpenAI API Key (with GPT-4o access) Libraries : openai , streamlit , pydantic , pillow Step 1: Defining the Data Schema with Pydantic To make our engine reliable, we can't just accept raw text from the AI. We need structured data. We’ll use Pydantic to define exactly what a "Nutrition Report" looks like. from pydantic import BaseModel , Field from typing import List class Ingredient ( BaseModel ): name : str = Field ( description = " Name of the ingredient identified " ) estimated_weight_g : float = Field ( description = " Estimated weight

In our inaugural issue , we established that the future of enterprise AI lies not merely in raw model parameters, but in the architectural paradigms—specifically Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)—that capture relational intelligence. However, the most sophisticated architectural decision is rendered obsolete if the deployment infrastructure introduces prohibitive latency. At Informatiqs, we emphasize that model deployment is fundamentally an operations research problem. As we transition from batch-processed predictions to real-time Generative AI and dynamic Machine Learning on Google Cloud Platform (GCP), we confront the inherent friction between compute elasticity and system responsiveness: the notorious "Cold Start" problem. In this issue, we dissect the mathematics of serverless inference, the orchestration of Cloud Run and Eventarc, and how minimizing initialization latency is the ultimate enabler for high-frequency, event-driven enterprise intelligence. 1. The Mathematical Anatomy of the Cold Start To engineer a solution, we must first formalize the problem. In a serverless architecture (scale-to-zero), infrastructure scales dynamically with demand. The total response time for an inference request can be understood as a composite of three phases. First, the baseline network latency. Second, the actual inference time—the computational effort of the model itself. The critical variable, however, is the conditional penalty phase. If a serverless container has scaled to zero, the system must endure the time required to provision new compute resources and the heavily taxing process of loading massive neural network weights into memory. If the container is already 'warm', this penalty is completely bypassed. We can model the probability of encountering this cold start using queueing theory. Assuming incoming inference requests arrive as a stochastic process, the likelihood of a cold start is determined by the mathematical relationship between the frequency of incoming requ

In the current epoch of Artificial Intelligence, the industry remains singularly preoccupied with the "Model" — obsessing over the raw parameter scales of the latest LLMs or the specific benchmark performance of a new transformer variant. However, at Informatiqs, we shift the lens. We recognize that sustainable enterprise value is rarely derived from the model in isolation; instead, it emerges from the high-stakes architectural decisions and systemic orchestration that define its environment. As we launch our inaugural edition, we dissect a critical technological nexus: the convergence of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), Generative AI, and the industrial-grade infrastructure of Google Cloud Platform (GCP). We argue that for complex enterprise datasets, the transition from flat vector embeddings in latent space toward non-Euclidean, graph-based relational intelligence is the primary differentiator for the next generation of resilient AI applications. 1. The Scientific Foundation: Exploiting Relational Inductive Bias Traditional Deep Learning architectures, such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) for images or Transformers for text, primarily operate on data structured as sequences (Euclidean space). While exceptionally powerful, these structures often fail to capture the topological nuances of real-world systems like supply chains, molecular structures, or fraudulent transaction webs where data is inherently non-Euclidean. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) provide a framework for learning from data represented as nodes and edges. Unlike standard neural networks that process inputs in isolation, GNNs utilize a Message Passing paradigm. In this process, a node's internal representation is iteratively updated by aggregating information from its immediate neighbors. Instead of looking at a data point as a single row in a database, the GNN looks at who that data point "talks to" and how those connections define its identity. By utilizing Graph Attention mechanisms, we can fu

gex.live has two halves. The terminal measures where SPX options dealers are positioned, every second, from the tape. The Lab is the half that asks the uncomfortable question: does any of that predict anything? What it is A browser-side conveyor with three stages and a credit meter. Compile. You describe a rule in plain text — "short the first touch of the put wall when net gamma is below the 20th percentile" — and the compiler turns it into a deterministic rule over the archive's fields: flip, walls, hold band, gamma percentile, DEX/VEX/vanna/charm per strike, time of day. Compiling is free. If the text is ambiguous the compiler says which part, instead of guessing. Backtest. The rule runs against the full session archive — 1,000+ finished SPX days, every one of them public at gex.live/sessions — with a fixed out-of-sample split. One credit per job; a job that fails refunds itself. Quant optimize. Optional. A LightGBM pass over the same feature store to see whether there is structure the hand-written rule missed, reported as out-of-sample AUC plus feature importance, not as a new "signal". The heavy part (DuckDB + LightGBM) runs in a scale-to-zero container that reads snapshots over HTTPS from the public archive. It depends on no machine and on no private data, which is the point: you are testing against the same files anyone can download. The honest-stats rule Every verdict comes with its baseline. "Your rule made 3% in-sample" means nothing next to "the unconditional drift over the same days was 2.8%". The report shows both, shows the out-of-sample half separately, and refuses to produce a headline number from the in-sample half. Most rules do not survive this. That includes our own: the site's own directional levels were tested three separate ways across the whole archive and none held out of sample — which is why the terminal sells measurement and not signals, and why the Lab exists at all. The free Idea Feed Next to the conveyor sits a rail of rule-shaped idea

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

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]