How to Build an End-to-End Data Science Workflow with Machine Learning, Interpretability, and Gemini AI Assistance?

 

In this tutorial, we walk through an advanced end-to-end data science workflow where we combine traditional machine learning with the power of Gemini. We begin by preparing and modeling the diabetes dataset, then we dive into evaluation, feature importance, and partial dependence. Along the way, we bring in Gemini as our AI data scientist to explain results, answer exploratory questions, and highlight risks. By doing this, we build a predictive model while also enhancing our insights and decision-making through natural language interaction. Check out the .

!pip -qU google-generativeai scikit-learn matplotlib pandas numpy
from getpass import getpass
import os, json, numpy as np, pandas as pd, matplotlib.pyplot as plt


if not os.environ.get("GOOGLE_API_KEY"):
   os.environ["GOOGLE_API_KEY"] = getpass("🔑 Enter your Gemini API key (hidden): ")


import google.generativeai as genai
genai.configure(api_key=os.environ["GOOGLE_API_KEY"])
LLM = genai.GenerativeModel("gemini-1.5-flash")


def ask_llm(prompt, sys=None):
   p = prompt if sys is None else f"System:n{sys}nnUser:n{prompt}"
   r = LLM.generate_content(p)
   return (getattr(r, "text", "") or "").strip()


from sklearn.datasets import load_diabetes
raw = load_diabetes(as_frame=True)
df  = raw.frame.rename(columns={"target":"disease_progression"})
print("Shape:", df.shape); display(df.head())


from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split, KFold, cross_val_score
from sklearn.compose import ColumnTransformer
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler, QuantileTransformer
from sklearn.ensemble import HistGradientBoostingRegressor
from sklearn.pipeline import Pipeline


X = df.drop(columns=["disease_progression"]); y = df["disease_progression"]
num_cols = X.columns.tolist()
pre = ColumnTransformer(
   [("scale", StandardScaler(), num_cols),
    ("rank",  QuantileTransformer(n_quantiles=min(200, len(X)), output_distribution="normal"), num_cols)],
   remainder="drop", verbose_feature_names_out=False)
model = HistGradientBoostingRegressor(max_depth=3, learning_rate=0.07,
                                     l2_regularization=0.0, max_iter=500,
                                     early_stopping=True, validation_fraction=0.15)
pipe  = Pipeline([("prep", pre), ("hgbt", model)])


Xtr, Xte, ytr, yte = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.20, random_state=42)
cv = KFold(n_splits=5, shuffle=True, random_state=42)
cv_mse = -cross_val_score(pipe, Xtr, ytr, scoring="neg_mean_squared_error", cv=cv).mean()
cv_rmse = float(cv_mse ** 0.5)
pipe.fit(Xtr, ytr)

We load the diabetes dataset, preprocess the features, and build a robust pipeline using scaling, quantile transformation, and gradient boosting. We split the data, perform cross-validation to estimate RMSE, and then fit the final model to see how well it generalizes. Check out the .

pred_tr = pipe.predict(Xtr); pred_te = pipe.predict(Xte)
rmse_tr = mean_squared_error(ytr, pred_tr) ** 0.5
rmse_te = mean_squared_error(yte, pred_te) ** 0.5
mae_te  = mean_absolute_error(yte, pred_te)
r2_te   = r2_score(yte, pred_te)
print(f"CV RMSE={cv_rmse:.2f} | Train RMSE={rmse_tr:.2f} | Test RMSE={rmse_te:.2f} | Test MAE={mae_te:.2f} | R²={r2_te:.3f}")


plt.figure(figsize=(5,4))
plt.scatter(pred_te, yte - pred_te, s=12)
plt.axhline(0, lw=1); plt.xlabel("Predicted"); plt.ylabel("Residual"); plt.title("Residuals (Test)")
plt.show()


from sklearn.inspection import permutation_importance
imp = permutation_importance(pipe, Xte, yte, scoring="neg_mean_squared_error", n_repeats=10, random_state=0)
imp_df = pd.DataFrame({"feature": X.columns, "importance": imp.importances_mean}).sort_values("importance", ascending=False)
display(imp_df.head(10))


plt.figure(figsize=(6,4))
top10 = imp_df.head(10).iloc[::-1]
plt.barh(top10["feature"], top10["importance"])
plt.title("Permutation Importance (Top 10)"); plt.xlabel("Δ(MSE)"); plt.tight_layout(); plt.show()

We evaluate our model by computing train, test, and cross-validation metrics, and visualize residuals to check prediction errors. We then calculate permutation importance to identify which features drive the model most, and display the top contributors using a clear bar plot. Check out the .

def compute_pdp(pipe, Xref: pd.DataFrame, feat: str, grid=40):
   xs = np.linspace(np.percentile(Xref[feat], 5), np.percentile(Xref[feat], 95), grid)
   Xtmp = Xref.copy()
   ys = []
   for v in xs:
       Xtmp[feat] = v
       ys.append(pipe.predict(Xtmp).mean())
   return xs, np.array(ys)


top_feats = imp_df["feature"].head(3).tolist()
plt.figure(figsize=(6,4))
for f in top_feats:
   xs, ys = compute_pdp(pipe, Xte.copy(), f, grid=40)
   plt.plot(xs, ys, label=f)
plt.legend(); plt.xlabel("Feature value"); plt.ylabel("Predicted target"); plt.title("Manual PDP (Top 3)")
plt.tight_layout(); plt.show()




report_obj = {
   "dataset": {"rows": int(df.shape[0]), "cols": int(df.shape[1]-1), "target": "disease_progression"},
   "metrics": {"cv_rmse": float(cv_rmse), "train_rmse": float(rmse_tr),
               "test_rmse": float(rmse_te), "test_mae": float(mae_te), "r2": float(r2_te)},
   "top_importances": imp_df.head(10).to_dict(orient="records")
}
print(json.dumps(report_obj, indent=2))


sys_msg = ("You are a senior data scientist. Return: (1) ≤120-word executive summary, "
          "(2) key risks/assumptions bullets, (3) 5 prioritized next experiments w/ rationale, "
          "(4) quick-win feature engineering ideas as Python pseudocode.")
summary = ask_llm(f"Dataset + metrics + importances:n{json.dumps(report_obj)}", sys=sys_msg)
print("n📊 Gemini Executive Briefn" + "-"*80 + f"n{summary}n")

We compute the manual partial dependence for the top three features and visualize how changing each one affects the predictions. We then assemble a compact JSON report of dataset statistics, metrics, and importances, and ask Gemini to generate an executive brief that includes risks, next experiments, and quick-win feature engineering ideas. Check out the .

SAFE_GLOBALS = {"pd": pd, "np": np}
def run_generated_pandas(code: str, df_local: pd.DataFrame):
   banned = ["__", "import", "open(", "exec(", "eval(", "os.", "sys.", "pd.read", "to_csv", "to_pickle", "to_sql"]
   if any(b in code for b in banned): raise ValueError("Unsafe code rejected.")
   loc = {"df": df_local.copy()}
   exec(code, SAFE_GLOBALS, loc)
   return {k:v for k,v in loc.items() if k not in ("df",)}


def eda_qa(question: str):
   prompt = f"""You are a Python+Pandas analyst. DataFrame `df` columns:
{list(df.columns)}. Write a SHORT pandas snippet (no comments/prints) that computes the answer to:
"{question}". Use only pd/np/df; assign the final result to a variable named `answer`."""
   code = ask_llm(prompt, sys="Return only code. No prose.")
   try:
       out = run_generated_pandas(code, df)
       return code, out.get("answer", None)
   except Exception as e:
       return code, f"[Execution error: {e}]"


questions = [
   "What is the Pearson correlation between BMI and disease_progression?",
   "Show mean target by tertiles of BMI (low/med/high).",
   "Which single feature correlates most with the target (absolute value)?"
]
for q in questions:
   code, ans = eda_qa(q)
   print("nQ:", q, "nCode:n", code, "nAnswer:n", ans)

We build a safe sandbox to execute pandas code that Gemini generates for exploratory data analysis. We then ask natural language questions about correlations and feature relationships, let Gemini write the pandas snippets, and automatically run them to get direct answers from the dataset. Check out the .

crossitique = ask_llm(
   f"""Metrics: {report_obj['metrics']}
Top importances: {report_obj['top_importances']}
Identify risks around leakage, overfitting, calibration, OOD robustness, and fairness (even proxy-only).
Propose quick checks (concise Python sketches)."""
)
print("n🧪 Gemini Risk & Robustness Reviewn" + "-"*80 + f"n{critique}n")


def what_if(pipe, Xref: pd.DataFrame, feat: str, delta: float = 0.05):
   x0 = Xref.median(numeric_only=True).to_dict()
   x1, x2 = x0.copy(), x0.copy()
   if feat not in x1: return np.nan
   x2[feat] = x1[feat] + delta
   X1 = pd.DataFrame([x1], columns=X.columns)
   X2 = pd.DataFrame([x2], columns=X.columns)
   return float(pipe.predict(X2)[0] - pipe.predict(X1)[0])


for f in top_feats:
   print(f"Estimated Δtarget if {f} increases by +0.05 ≈ {what_if(pipe, Xte, f, 0.05):.2f}")


print("n✅ Done: Train → Explain → Query with Gemini → Review risks → What-if analysis. "
     "Swap the dataset or tweak model params to extend this notebook.")

We ask Gemini to review our model for risks like leakage, overfitting, and fairness, and get quick Python checks as suggestions. We then run simple “what-if” analyses to see how small changes in top features affect predictions, helping us interpret the model’s behavior more clearly.

In conclusion, we see how seamlessly we can blend machine learning pipelines with Gemini’s reasoning to make data science more interactive and insightful. We train, evaluate, and interpret a model, then ask Gemini to summarize findings, suggest improvements, and critique risks. Through this journey, we establish a workflow that enables us to achieve both predictive performance and interpretability, while also benefiting from having an AI collaborator in our data analysis process.


Check out the . Feel free to check out our . Also, feel free to follow us on  and don’t forget to join our  and Subscribe to .

The post appeared first on .

Read More
Vision-RAG vs Text-RAG: A Technical Comparison for Enterprise Search

Vision-RAG vs Text-RAG: A Technical Comparison for Enterprise Search

 

Most RAG failures originate at retrieval, not generation. Text-first pipelines lose layout semantics, table structure, and figure grounding during PDF→text conversion, degrading recall and precision before an LLM ever runs. Vision-RAG—retrieving rendered pages with vision-language embeddings—directly targets this bottleneck and shows material end-to-end gains on visually rich corpora.

Pipelines (and where they fail)

Text-RAG. PDF → (parser/OCR) → text chunks → text embeddings → ANN index → retrieve → LLM. Typical failure modes: OCR noise, multi-column flow breakage, table cell structure loss, and missing figure/chart semantics—documented by table- and doc-VQA benchmarks created to measure exactly these gaps.

Vision-RAG. PDF → page raster(s) → VLM embeddings (often multi-vector with late-interaction scoring) → ANN index → retrieve → VLM/LLM consumes high-fidelity crops or full pages. This preserves layout and figure-text grounding; recent systems (ColPali, VisRAG, VDocRAG) validate the approach.

What current evidence supports

  • Document-image retrieval works and is simpler. ColPali embeds page images and uses late-interaction matching; on the ViDoRe benchmark it outperforms modern text pipelines while remaining end-to-end trainable.
  • End-to-end lift is measurable. VisRAG reports 25–39% end-to-end improvement over text-RAG on multimodal documents when both retrieval and generation use a VLM.
  • Unified image format for real-world docs. VDocRAG shows that keeping documents in a unified image format (tables, charts, PPT/PDF) avoids parser loss and improves generalization; it also introduces OpenDocVQA for evaluation.
  • Resolution drives reasoning quality. High-resolution support in VLMs (e.g., Qwen2-VL/Qwen2.5-VL) is explicitly tied to SoTA results on DocVQA/MathVista/MTVQA; fidelity matters for ticks, superscripts, stamps, and small fonts.

Costs: vision context is (often) order-of-magnitude heavier—because of tokens

Vision inputs inflate token counts via tiling, not necessarily per-token price. For GPT-4o-class models, total tokens ≈ base + (tile_tokens × tiles), so 1–2 MP pages can be ~10× cost of a small text chunk. Anthropic recommends ~1.15 MP caps (~1.6k tokens) for responsiveness. By contrast, Google Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite prices text/image/video at the same per-token rate, but large images still consume many more tokens. Engineering implication: adopt selective fidelity (crop > downsample > full page).

Design rules for production Vision-RAG

  1. Align modalities across embeddings. Use encoders trained for text↔image alignment (CLIP-family or VLM retrievers) and, in practice, dual-index: cheap text recall for coverage + vision rerank for precision. ColPali’s late-interaction (MaxSim-style) is a strong default for page images.
  2. Feed high-fidelity inputs selectively. Coarse-to-fine: run BM25/DPR, take top-k pages to a vision reranker, then send only ROI crops (tables, charts, stamps) to the generator. This preserves crucial pixels without exploding tokens under tile-based accounting.
  3. Engineer for real documents.
    Tables: if you must parse, use table-structure models (e.g., PubTables-1M/TATR); otherwise prefer image-native retrieval.
    Charts/diagrams: expect tick- and legend-level cues; resolution must retain these. Evaluate on chart-focused VQA sets.
    Whiteboards/rotations/multilingual: page rendering avoids many OCR failure modes; multilingual scripts and rotated scans survive the pipeline.
    Provenance: store page hashes and crop coordinates alongside embeddings to reproduce exact visual evidence used in answers.
Standard Text-RAG Vision-RAG
Ingest pipeline PDF → parser/OCR → text chunks → text embeddings → ANN PDF → page render(s) → VLM page/crop embeddings (often multi-vector, late interaction) → ANN. ColPali is a canonical implementation.
Primary failure modes Parser drift, OCR noise, multi-column flow breakage, table structure loss, missing figure/chart semantics. Benchmarks exist because these errors are common. Preserves layout/figures; failures shift to resolution/tiling choices and cross-modal alignment. VDocRAG formalizes “unified image” processing to avoid parsing loss.
Retriever representation Single-vector text embeddings; rerank via lexical or cross-encoders Page-image embeddings with late interaction (MaxSim-style) capture local regions; improves page-level retrieval on ViDoRe.
End-to-end gains (vs Text-RAG) Baseline +25–39% E2E on multimodal docs when both retrieval and generation are VLM-based (VisRAG).
Where it excels Clean, text-dominant corpora; low latency/cost Visually rich/structured docs: tables, charts, stamps, rotated scans, multilingual typography; unified page context helps QA.
Resolution sensitivity Not applicable beyond OCR settings Reasoning quality tracks input fidelity (ticks, small fonts). High-res document VLMs (e.g., Qwen2-VL family) emphasize this.
Cost model (inputs) Tokens ≈ characters; cheap retrieval contexts Image tokens grow with tiling: e.g., OpenAI base+tiles formula; Anthropic guidance ~1.15 MP ≈ ~1.6k tokens. Even when per-token price is equal (Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite), high-res pages consume far more tokens.
Cross-modal alignment need Not required Critical: text↔image encoders must share geometry for mixed queries; ColPali/ViDoRe demonstrate effective page-image retrieval aligned to language tasks.
Benchmarks to track DocVQA (doc QA), PubTables-1M (table structure) for parsing-loss diagnostics. ViDoRe (page retrieval), VisRAG (pipeline), VDocRAG (unified-image RAG).
Evaluation approach IR metrics plus text QA; may miss figure-text grounding issues Joint retrieval+gen on visually rich suites (e.g., OpenDocVQA under VDocRAG) to capture crop relevance and layout grounding.
Operational pattern One-stage retrieval; cheap to scale Coarse-to-fine: text recall → vision rerank → ROI crops to generator; keeps token costs bounded while preserving fidelity. (Tiling math/pricing inform budgets.)
When to prefer Contracts/templates, code/wikis, normalized tabular data (CSV/Parquet) Real-world enterprise docs with heavy layout/graphics; compliance workflows needing pixel-exact provenance (page hash + crop coords).
Representative systems DPR/BM25 + cross-encoder rerank ColPali (ICLR’25) vision retriever; VisRAG pipeline; VDocRAG unified image framework.

When Text-RAG is still the right default?

  • Clean, text-dominant corpora (contracts with fixed templates, wikis, code)
  • Strict latency/cost constraints for short answers
  • Data already normalized (CSV/Parquet)—skip pixels and query the table store

Evaluation: measure retrieval + generation jointly

Add multimodal RAG benchmarks to your harness—e.g., M²RAG (multi-modal QA, captioning, fact-verification, reranking), REAL-MM-RAG (real-world multi-modal retrieval), and RAG-Check (relevance + correctness metrics for multi-modal context). These catch failure cases (irrelevant crops, figure-text mismatch) that text-only metrics miss.

Summary

Text-RAG remains efficient for clean, text-only data. Vision-RAG is the practical default for enterprise documents with layout, tables, charts, stamps, scans, and multilingual typography. Teams that (1) align modalities, (2) deliver selective high-fidelity visual evidence, and (3) evaluate with multimodal benchmarks consistently get higher retrieval precision and better downstream answers—now backed by ColPali (ICLR 2025), VisRAG’s 25–39% E2E lift, and VDocRAG’s unified image-format results.


References:

  • ()
  • ()

The post appeared first on .

Read More

How to Master Advanced TorchVision v2 Transforms, MixUp, CutMix, and Modern CNN Training for State-of-the-Art Computer Vision?

 

In this tutorial, we explore advanced computer vision techniques using TorchVision’s v2 transforms, modern augmentation strategies, and powerful training enhancements. We walk through the process of building an augmentation pipeline, applying MixUp and CutMix, designing a modern CNN with attention, and implementing a robust training loop. By running everything seamlessly in Google Colab, we position ourselves to understand and apply state-of-the-art practices in deep learning with clarity and efficiency. Check out the .

!pip install torch torchvision torchaudio --quiet
!pip install matplotlib pillow numpy --quiet


import torch
import torchvision
from torchvision import transforms as T
from torchvision.transforms import v2
import torch.nn as nn
import torch.optim as optim
from torch.utils.data import DataLoader
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from PIL import Image
import requests
from io import BytesIO


print(f"PyTorch version: {torch.__version__}")
print(f"TorchVision version: {torchvision.__version__}")

We begin by installing the libraries and importing all the essential modules for our workflow. We set up PyTorch, TorchVision v2 transforms, and supporting tools like NumPy, PIL, and Matplotlib, so we are ready to build and test advanced computer vision pipelines. Check out the .

class AdvancedAugmentationPipeline:
   def __init__(self, image_size=224, training=True):
       self.image_size = image_size
       self.training = training
       base_transforms = [
           v2.ToImage(),
           v2.ToDtype(torch.uint8, scale=True),
       ]
       if training:
           self.transform = v2.Compose([
               *base_transforms,
               v2.Resize((image_size + 32, image_size + 32)),
               v2.RandomResizedCrop(image_size, scale=(0.8, 1.0), ratio=(0.9, 1.1)),
               v2.RandomHorizontalFlip(p=0.5),
               v2.RandomRotation(degrees=15),
               v2.ColorJitter(brights=0.4, contst=0.4, sation=0.4, hue=0.1),
               v2.RandomGrayscale(p=0.1),
               v2.GaussianBlur(kernel_size=3, sigma=(0.1, 2.0)),
               v2.RandomPerspective(distortion_scale=0.1, p=0.3),
               v2.RandomAffine(degrees=10, translate=(0.1, 0.1), scale=(0.9, 1.1)),
               v2.ToDtype(torch.float32, scale=True),
               v2.Normalize(mean=[0.485, 0.456, 0.406], std=[0.229, 0.224, 0.225])
           ])
       else:
           self.transform = v2.Compose([
               *base_transforms,
               v2.Resize((image_size, image_size)),
               v2.ToDtype(torch.float32, scale=True),
               v2.Normalize(mean=[0.485, 0.456, 0.406], std=[0.229, 0.224, 0.225])
           ])
   def __call__(self, image):
       return self.transform(image)

We define an advanced augmentation pipeline that adapts to both training and validation modes. We apply powerful TorchVision v2 transforms, such as cropping, flipping, color jittering, blurring, perspective, and affine transformations, during training, while keeping validation preprocessing simple with resizing and normalization. This way, we ensure that we enrich the training data for better generalization while maintaining consistent and stable evaluation. Check out the .

class AdvancedMixupCutmix:
   def __init__(self, mixup_alpha=1.0, cutmix_alpha=1.0, prob=0.5):
       self.mixup_alpha = mixup_alpha
       self.cutmix_alpha = cutmix_alpha
       self.prob = prob
   def mixup(self, x, y):
       batch_size = x.size(0)
       lam = np.random.beta(self.mixup_alpha, self.mixup_alpha) if self.mixup_alpha > 0 else 1
       index = torch.randperm(batch_size)
       mixed_x = lam * x + (1 - lam) * x[index, :]
       y_a, y_b = y, y[index]
       return mixed_x, y_a, y_b, lam
   def cutmix(self, x, y):
       batch_size = x.size(0)
       lam = np.random.beta(self.cutmix_alpha, self.cutmix_alpha) if self.cutmix_alpha > 0 else 1
       index = torch.randperm(batch_size)
       y_a, y_b = y, y[index]
       bbx1, bby1, bbx2, bby2 = self._rand_bbox(x.size(), lam)
       x[:, :, bbx1:bbx2, bby1:bby2] = x[index, :, bbx1:bbx2, bby1:bby2]
       lam = 1 - ((bbx2 - bbx1) * (bby2 - bby1) / (x.size()[-1] * x.size()[-2]))
       return x, y_a, y_b, lam
   def _rand_bbox(self, size, lam):
       W = size[2]
       H = size[3]
       cut_rat = np.sqrt(1. - lam)
       cut_w = int(W * cut_rat)
       cut_h = int(H * cut_rat)
       cx = np.random.randint(W)
       cy = np.random.randint(H)
       bbx1 = np.clip(cx - cut_w // 2, 0, W)
       bby1 = np.clip(cy - cut_h // 2, 0, H)
       bbx2 = np.clip(cx + cut_w // 2, 0, W)
       bby2 = np.clip(cy + cut_h // 2, 0, H)
       return bbx1, bby1, bbx2, bby2
   def __call__(self, x, y):
       if np.random.random() > self.prob:
           return x, y, y, 1.0
       if np.random.random() < 0.5:
           return self.mixup(x, y)
       else:
           return self.cutmix(x, y)


class ModernCNN(nn.Module):
   def __init__(self, num_classes=10, dropout=0.3):
       super(ModernCNN, self).__init__()
       self.conv1 = self._conv_block(3, 64)
       self.conv2 = self._conv_block(64, 128, downsample=True)
       self.conv3 = self._conv_block(128, 256, downsample=True)
       self.conv4 = self._conv_block(256, 512, downsample=True)
       self.gap = nn.AdaptiveAvgPool2d(1)
       self.attention = nn.Sequential(
           nn.Linear(512, 256),
           nn.ReLU(),
           nn.Linear(256, 512),
           nn.Sigmoid()
       )
       self.classifier = nn.Sequential(
           nn.Dropout(dropout),
           nn.Linear(512, 256),
           nn.BatchNorm1d(256),
           nn.ReLU(),
           nn.Dropout(dropout/2),
           nn.Linear(256, num_classes)
       )
   def _conv_block(self, in_channels, out_channels, downsample=False):
       stride = 2 if downsample else 1
       return nn.Sequential(
           nn.Conv2d(in_channels, out_channels, 3, stride=stride, padding=1),
           nn.BatchNorm2d(out_channels),
           nn.ReLU(inplace=True),
           nn.Conv2d(out_channels, out_channels, 3, padding=1),
           nn.BatchNorm2d(out_channels),
           nn.ReLU(inplace=True)
       )
   def forward(self, x):
       x = self.conv1(x)
       x = self.conv2(x)
       x = self.conv3(x)
       x = self.conv4(x)
       x = self.gap(x)
       x = torch.flatten(x, 1)
       attention_weights = self.attention(x)
       x = x * attention_weights
       return self.classifier(x)

We strengthen our training with a unified MixUp/CutMix module, where we stochastically blend images or patch-swap regions and compute label interpolation with the exact pixel ratio. We pair this with a modern CNN that stacks progressive conv blocks, applies global average pooling, and uses a learned attention gate before a dropout-regularized classifier, so we improve generalization while keeping inference straightforward. Check out the .

class AdvancedTrainer:
   def __init__(self, model, device='cuda' if torch.cuda.is_available() else 'cpu'):
       self.model = model.to(device)
       self.device = device
       self.mixup_cutmix = AdvancedMixupCutmix()
       self.optimizer = optim.AdamW(model.parameters(), lr=1e-3, weight_decay=1e-4)
       self.scheduler = optim.lr_scheduler.OneCycleLR(
           self.optimizer, max_lr=1e-2, epochs=10, steps_per_epoch=100
       )
       self.criterion = nn.CrossEntropyLoss()
   def mixup_criterion(self, pred, y_a, y_b, lam):
       return lam * self.criterion(pred, y_a) + (1 - lam) * self.criterion(pred, y_b)
   def train_epoch(self, dataloader):
       self.model.train()
       total_loss = 0
       correct = 0
       total = 0
       for batch_idx, (data, target) in enumerate(dataloader):
           data, target = data.to(self.device), target.to(self.device)
           data, target_a, target_b, lam = self.mixup_cutmix(data, target)
           self.optimizer.zero_grad()
           output = self.model(data)
           if lam != 1.0:
               loss = self.mixup_criterion(output, target_a, target_b, lam)
           else:
               loss = self.criterion(output, target)
           loss.backward()
           torch.nn.utils.clip_grad_norm_(self.model.parameters(), max_norm=1.0)
           self.optimizer.step()
           self.scheduler.step()
           total_loss += loss.item()
           _, predicted = output.max(1)
           total += target.size(0)
           if lam != 1.0:
               correct += (lam * predicted.eq(target_a).sum().item() +
                          (1 - lam) * predicted.eq(target_b).sum().item())
           else:
               correct += predicted.eq(target).sum().item()
       return total_loss / len(dataloader), 100. * correct / total

We orchestrate training with AdamW, OneCycleLR, and dynamic MixUp/CutMix so we stabilize optimization and boost generalization. We compute an interpolated loss when mixing, clip gradients for safety, and step the scheduler each batch, so we track loss/accuracy per epoch in a single tight loop. Check out the .

def demo_advanced_techniques():
   batch_size = 16
   num_classes = 10
   sample_data = torch.randn(batch_size, 3, 224, 224)
   sample_labels = torch.randint(0, num_classes, (batch_size,))
   transform_pipeline = AdvancedAugmentationPipeline(training=True)
   model = ModernCNN(num_classes=num_classes)
   trainer = AdvancedTrainer(model)
   print("🚀 Advanced Deep Learning Tutorial Demo")
   print("=" * 50)
   print("n1. Advanced Augmentation Pipeline:")
   augmented = transform_pipeline(Image.fromarray((sample_data[0].permute(1,2,0).numpy() * 255).astype(np.uint8)))
   print(f"   Original shape: {sample_data[0].shape}")
   print(f"   Augmented shape: {augmented.shape}")
   print(f"   Applied transforms: Resize, Crop, Flip, ColorJitter, Blur, Perspective, etc.")
   print("n2. MixUp/CutMix Augmentation:")
   mixup_cutmix = AdvancedMixupCutmix()
   mixed_data, target_a, target_b, lam = mixup_cutmix(sample_data, sample_labels)
   print(f"   Mixed batch shape: {mixed_data.shape}")
   print(f"   Lambda value: {lam:.3f}")
   print(f"   Technique: {'MixUp' if lam > 0.7 else 'CutMix'}")
   print("n3. Modern CNN Architecture:")
   model.eval()
   with torch.no_grad():
       output = model(sample_data)
   print(f"   Input shape: {sample_data.shape}")
   print(f"   Output shape: {output.shape}")
   print(f"   Features: Residual blocks, Attention, Global Average Pooling")
   print(f"   Parameters: {sum(p.numel() for p in model.parameters()):,}")
   print("n4. Advanced Training Simulation:")
   dummy_loader = [(sample_data, sample_labels)]
   loss, acc = trainer.train_epoch(dummy_loader)
   print(f"   Training loss: {loss:.4f}")
   print(f"   Training accuracy: {acc:.2f}%")
   print(f"   Learning rate: {trainer.scheduler.get_last_lr()[0]:.6f}")
   print("n✅ Tutorial completed successfully!")
   print("This code demonstrates state-of-the-art techniques in deep learning:")
   print("• Advanced data augmentation with TorchVision v2")
   print("• MixUp and CutMix for better generalization")
   print("• Modern CNN architecture with attention")
   print("• Advanced training loop with OneCycleLR")
   print("• Gradient clipping and weight decay")


if __name__ == "__main__":
   demo_advanced_techniques()

We run a compact end-to-end demo where we visualize our augmentation pipeline, apply MixUp/CutMix, and double-check the ModernCNN with a forward pass. We then simulate one training epoch on dummy data to verify loss, accuracy, and learning-rate scheduling, so we confirm the full stack works before scaling to a real dataset.

In conclusion, we have successfully developed and tested a comprehensive workflow that integrates advanced augmentations, innovative CNN design, and modern training strategies. By experimenting with TorchVision v2, MixUp, CutMix, attention mechanisms, and OneCycleLR, we not only strengthen model performance but also deepen our understanding of cutting-edge techniques.


Check out the . Feel free to check out our . Also, feel free to follow us on  and don’t forget to join our  and Subscribe to .

The post appeared first on .

Read More
Alibaba’s Qwen3-Max: Production-Ready Thinking Mode, 1T+ Parameters, and Day-One Coding/Agentic Bench Signals

Alibaba’s Qwen3-Max: Production-Ready Thinking Mode, 1T+ Parameters, and Day-One Coding/Agentic Bench Signals

 

Alibaba has released Qwen3-Max, a trillion-parameter Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model positioned as its most capable foundation model to date, with an immediate public on-ramp via Qwen Chat and Alibaba Cloud’s Model Studio API. The launch moves Qwen’s 2025 cadence from preview to production and centers on two variants: Qwen3-Max-Instruct for standard reasoning/coding tasks and Qwen3-Max-Thinking for tool-augmented “agentic” workflows.

What’s new at the model level?

  • Scale & architecture: Qwen3-Max crosses the 1-trillion-parameter mark with an MoE design (sparse activation per token). Alibaba positions the model as its largest and most capable to date; public briefings and coverage consistently describe it as a 1T-parameter class system rather than another mid-scale refresh.
  • Training/runtime posture: Qwen3-Max uses a sparse Mixture-of-Experts design and was pretrained on ~36T tokens (~2× Qwen2.5). The corpus skews toward multilingual, coding, and STEM/reasoning data. Post-training follows Qwen3’s four-stage recipe: long CoT cold-start → reasoning-focused RL → thinking/non-thinking fusion → general-domain RL. Alibaba confirms >1T parameters for Max; treat token counts/routing as team-reported until a formal Max tech report is published.
  • Access: Qwen Chat showcases the general-purpose UX, while Model Studio exposes inference and “thinking mode” toggles (notably, incremental_output=true is required for Qwen3 thinking models). Model listings and pricing sit under Model Studio with regioned availability.

Benchmarks: coding, agentic control, math

  • Coding (SWE-Bench Verified). Qwen3-Max-Instruct is reported at 69.6 on SWE-Bench Verified. That places it above some non-thinking baselines (e.g., DeepSeek V3.1 non-thinking) and slightly below Claude Opus 4 non-thinking in at least one roundup. Treat these as point-in-time numbers; SWE-Bench evaluations move quickly with harness updates.
  • Agentic tool use (Tau2-Bench). Qwen3-Max posts 74.8 on Tau2-Bench—an agent/tool-calling evaluation—beating named peers in the same report. Tau2 is designed to test decision-making and tool routing, not just text accuracy, so gains here are meaningful for workflow automation.
  • Math & advanced reasoning (AIME25, etc.). The Qwen3-Max-Thinking track (with tool use and a “heavy” runtime configuration) is described as near-perfect on key math benchmarks (e.g., AIME25) in multiple secondary sources and earlier preview coverage. Until an official technical report drops, treat “100%” claims as vendor-reported or community-replicated, not peer-reviewed.
https://qwen.ai/
https://qwen.ai/

Why two tracks—Instruct vs. Thinking?

Instruct targets conventional chat/coding/reasoning with tight latency, while Thinking enables longer deliberation traces and explicit tool calls (retrieval, code execution, browsing, evaluators), aimed at higher-reliability “agent” use cases. Critically, Alibaba’s API docs formalize the runtime switch: Qwen3 thinking models only operate with streaming incremental output enabled; commercial defaults are false, so callers must explicitly set it. This is a small but consequential contract detail if you’re instrumenting tools or chain-of-thought-like rollouts.

How to reason about the gains (signal vs. noise)?

  • Coding: A 60–70 SWE-Bench Verified score range typically reflects non-trivial repository-level reasoning and patch synthesis under evaluation harness constraints (e.g., environment setup, flaky tests). If your workloads hinge on repo-scale code changes, these deltas matter more than single-file coding toys.
  • Agentic: Tau2-Bench emphasizes multi-tool planning and action selection. Improvements here usually translate into fewer brittle hand-crafted policies in production agents, provided your tool APIs and execution sandboxes are robust.
  • Math/verification: “Near-perfect” math numbers from heavy/thinky modes underscore the value of extended deliberation plus tools (calculators, validators). Portability of those gains to open-ended tasks depends on your evaluator design and guardrails.

Summary

Qwen3-Max is not a teaser—it’s a deployable 1T-parameter MoE with documented thinking-mode semantics and reproducible access paths (Qwen Chat, Model Studio). Treat day-one benchmark wins as directionally strong but continue local evals; the hard, verifiable facts are scale (≈36T tokens, >1T params) and the API contract for tool-augmented runs (incremental_output=true). For teams building coding and agentic systems, this is ready for hands-on trials and internal gating against SWE-/Tau2-style suites.


Check out the , and . Feel free to check out our . Also, feel free to follow us on  and don’t forget to join our  and Subscribe to .

The post appeared first on .

Read More
CloudFlare AI Team Just Open-Sourced ‘VibeSDK’ that Lets Anyone Build and Deploy a Full AI Vibe Coding Platform with a Single Click

CloudFlare AI Team Just Open-Sourced ‘VibeSDK’ that Lets Anyone Build and Deploy a Full AI Vibe Coding Platform with a Single Click

 

CloudFlare AI team just open-sourced , a full-stack “vibe coding” platform that you can deploy end-to-end with a single click on Cloudflare’s network or GitHub Repo Fork. It packages code generation, safe execution, live preview, and multi-tenant deployment so teams can run their own internal or customer-facing AI app builder without stitching together infrastructure.

What’s actually in the box?

VibeSDK is a production-oriented reference implementation, not a toy UI. The repo (MIT-licensed) ships a React+Vite front end, Workers back end with Durable Objects for agent coordination, D1 (SQLite) via Drizzle, R2 for template storage, KV for sessions, and a “Deploy to Cloudflare” flow. It integrates Cloudflare Sandboxes/Containers for isolated builds and previews, and uses Workers for Platforms to publish each generated app as an isolated Worker with its own URL.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/deploy-your-own-ai-vibe-coding-platform/

How code moves through the system?

  1. A user describes the app; the agent generates files and writes them into a per-user sandbox.
  2. The sandbox installs deps and starts a dev ; the SDK exposes a public preview URL.
  3. Logs/errors stream back to the agent for iterative fixes.
  4. A deployment sandbox runs wrangler deploy to publish the app into a Workers-for-Platforms dispatch namespace, giving each app its own tenant-isolated Worker.

Models and routing

By default, VibeSDK uses Google’s Gemini 2.5 family for planning, codegen, and debugging, but all LLM calls go through Cloudflare AI Gateway. That enables unified routing across providers (OpenAI/Anthropic/Google/etc.), response caching for common requests, per-provider token/latency observability, and cost tracking. Swapping or mixing models is a config choice, not an architectural rewrite.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/deploy-your-own-ai-vibe-coding-platform/

Safety and multitenancy

The design assumes untrusted, AI-generated code: every build runs in an isolated container or sandbox with fast start, controlled egress, and preview URLs; production deployment is multi-tenant by design (per-app Worker isolation, usage limits, and optional outbound firewalling). This model scales to “thousands or millions” of user apps without cross-tenant access.

Is it really one click—and can I take my code to GitHub or my own account?

The Cloudflare provides a and a one-click deploy button. Once running, users can export generated projects to their own Cloudflare account or a GitHub repo for continued development—useful if you want to move work off the hosted instance or bring your own CI.

Why should platform teams care about “vibe coding” now?

“Vibe coding” shifts effort from hand-coding to supervising generative agents. VibeSDK hardens that pattern with a concrete, reproducible architecture: safe code execution, preview feedback loops, and cheap global deployment. For companies exploring AI builders for customers or internal teams, this replaces a weeks-to-months integration project with a baseline platform you can fork and specialize. For context, Cloudflare also documents the approach as a formal reference architecture so you can swap pieces (e.g., containers vs. sandboxes) without losing the system’s guarantees.

https://marktechpost.com/

Summary

Cloudflare’s VibeSDK turns “vibe coding” from demo to deployable substrate: a one-click stack that routes LLM calls through AI Gateway, executes AI-generated code in isolated sandboxes/containers, and publishes tenant-scoped via Workers for Platforms; paired with project export and a formal reference architecture, it gives teams a reproducible path to ship AI app builders without re-inventing the runtime or safety model.


Check out the  and . Feel free to check out our . Also, feel free to follow us on  and don’t forget to join our  and Subscribe to .

For content partnership/promotions on marktechpost.com, please 

The post appeared first on .

Read More
Google AI Research Introduce a Novel Machine Learning Approach that Transforms TimesFM into a Few-Shot Learner

Google AI Research Introduce a Novel Machine Learning Approach that Transforms TimesFM into a Few-Shot Learner

 

Table of contents

Google Research introduces in-context fine-tuning (ICF) for time-series forecasting named as ‘TimesFM-ICF): a continued-pretraining recipe that teaches TimesFM to exploit multiple related series provided directly in the prompt at inference time. The result is a few-shot forecaster that matches supervised fine-tuning while delivering +6.8% accuracy over the base TimesFM across an OOD benchmark—no per-dataset training loop required.

What pain point in forecasting is being eliminated?

Most production workflows still trade off between (a) one model per dataset via supervised fine-tuning (accuracy, but heavy MLOps) and (b) zero-shot foundation models (simple, but not domain-adapted). Google’s new approach keeps a single pre-trained TimesFM checkpoint but lets it adapt on the fly using a handful of in-context examples from related series during inference, avoiding per-tenant training pipelines.

How does in-context fine-tuning work under the hood?

Start with TimesFM—a patched, decoder-only transformer that tokenizes 32-point input patches and de-tokenizes 128-point outputs via a shared MLP—and continue pre-training it on sequences that interleave the target history with multiple “support” series. Now the key change introduced is a learnable common separator token, so cross-example causal attention can mine structure across examples without conflating trends. The training objective remains next-token prediction; what’s new is the context construction that teaches the model to reason across multiple related series at inference time.

https://research.google/blog/time-series-foundation-models-can-be-few-shot-learners/

What exactly is “few-shot” here?

At inference, the user concatenates the target history with kk additional time-series snippets (e.g., similar SKUs, adjacent sensors), each delimited by the separator token. The model’s attention layers are now explicitly trained to leverage those in-context examples, analogous to LLM few-shot prompting—but for numeric sequences rather than text tokens. This shifts adaptation from parameter updates to prompt engineering over structured series.

Does it actually match supervised fine-tuning?

On a 23-dataset out-of-domain suite, TimesFM-ICF equals the performance of per-dataset TimesFM-FT while being 6.8% more accurate than TimesFM-Base (geometric mean of scaled MASE). The blog also shows the expected accuracy–latency trade-off: more in-context examples yield better forecasts at the cost of longer inference. A “just make the context longer” ablation indicates that structured in-context examples beat naive long-context alone.

How is this different from Chronos-style approaches?

Chronos tokenizes values into a discrete vocabulary and demonstrated strong zero-shot accuracy and fast variants (e.g., Chronos-Bolt). Google’s contribution here is not another tokenizer or headroom on zero-shot; it’s making a time-series FM behave like an LLM few-shot learner—learning from cross-series context at inference. That capability closes the gap between “train-time adaptation” and “prompt-time adaptation” for numeric forecasting.

What are the architectural specifics to watch?

The research team highlights: (1) separator tokens to mark boundaries, (2) causal self-attention over mixed histories and examples, (3) persisted patching and shared MLP heads, and (4) continued pre-training to instill cross-example behavior. Collectively, these enable the model to treat support series as informative exemplars rather than background noise.

Summary

Google’s in-context fine-tuning turns TimesFM into a practical few-shot forecaster: a single pretrained checkpoint that adapts at inference via curated support series, delivering fine-tuning-level accuracy without per-dataset training overhead—useful for multi-tenant, latency-bounded deployments where selection of support sets becomes the main control surface


FAQs

1) What is Google’s “in-context fine-tuning” (ICF) for time series?
ICF is continued pre-training that conditions TimesFM to use multiple related series placed in the prompt at inference, enabling few-shot adaptation without per-dataset gradient updates.

2) How does ICF differ from standard fine-tuning and zero-shot use?
Standard fine-tuning updates weights per dataset; zero-shot uses a fixed model with only the target history. ICF keeps weights fixed at deployment but learns during pre-training how to leverage extra in-context examples, matching per-dataset fine-tuning on reported benchmarks.

3) What architectural or training changes were introduced?
TimesFM is continued-pretrained with sequences that interleave target history and support series, separated by special boundary tokens so causal attention can exploit cross-series structure; the rest of the decoder-only TimesFM stack stays intact.

4) What do the results show relative to baselines?
On out-of-domain suites, ICF improves over TimesFM base and reaches parity with supervised fine-tuning; it is evaluated against strong TS baselines (e.g., PatchTST) and prior FMs (e.g., Chronos).

The post appeared first on .

Read More