Training Evaluation Models

𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗢𝗦𝗧 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗟𝗟𝗠 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲? The LLM landscape is booming and choosing the right LLM is now a business decision, not just a tech choice. One-size-fits-all? Forget it. Nearly all enterprises today rely on different models for different use cases and/or industry-specific fine-tuned models. There’s no universal “best” model — only the best fit for a given task. The latest LLM landscape (see below) shows how models stack up in capability (MMLU score), parameter size and accessibility — and the differences REALLY matter.  𝗟𝗲𝘁'𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻: ⬇️ 1️⃣ 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝘃𝘀. 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁: - Need a broad, powerful AI? GPT-4, Claude Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro — great for general reasoning and diverse applications.   - Need domain expertise? E.g. IBM Granite or Mistral models (Lightweight & Fast) can be an excellent choice — tailored for specific industries.  2️⃣ 𝗕𝗶𝗴 𝘃𝘀. 𝗦𝗹𝗶𝗺:  - Powerful, large models (GPT-4, Claude Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro) = great reasoning, but expensive and slow. - Slim, efficient models (Mistral 7B, LLaMA 3, RWWK models) = faster, cheaper, easier to fine-tune. Perfect for on-device, edge AI, or latency-sensitive applications.  3️⃣ 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝘃𝘀. 𝗖𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱   - Need full control? Open-source models (LLaMA 3, Mistral, Llama) give you transparency and customization.   - Want cutting-edge performance? Closed models (GPT-4, Gemini, Claude) still lead in general intelligence.  𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆? There is no "best" model — only the best one for your use case, but it's key to understand the differences to make an informed decision: - Running AI in production? Go slim, go fast. - Need state-of-the-art reasoning? Go big, go deep. - Building industry-specific AI? Go specialized and save some money with SLMs.  I love seeing how the AI and LLM stack is evolving, offering multiple directions depending on your specific use case. Source of the picture: informationisbeautiful.net

NEW - AI Agent Adoption Guidance from Microsoft's Cloud Adoption Framework Over the past year working with customers, we’ve seen that controlling and standardizing agent development across an organization is top of mind for most leaders. To address this, we created our new AI Agent Adoption Guidance, and it is now publicly available in Microsoft’s Cloud Adoption Framework: Read the guidance here: https://lnkd.in/ehFWdaR5 Why should I use it? This guidance provides an end-to-end framework for AI agent adoption. It helps leaders move from planning to managing all their agents across an organization. It provides best practices at each stage and shows you how Microsoft Foundry and Microsoft Copilot Studio enable those recommendations. The guidance presents a practical sequence through Foundry and Copilot Studio that reflects how teams will naturally use them, mapping best practices to tool usage. It also covers data architecture with Microsoft Fabric, Foundry IQ, and Fabric IQ, as well as SaaS agents in Microsoft 365, GitHub Copilot, Microsoft Fabric, Azure Copilot, Dynamics 365, and Security Copilot agents This approach helps organizations understand how Microsoft supports their journey while enabling them to standardize and govern agent development with confidence. Who is the guidance for? If you are responsible for AI agents across your business, organization, or multiple teams, whether large or small, this guidance is for you. It is designed to help you govern, secure, and measure the success of all your AI agents. What is the process to adopt AI agents? AI agent adoption involves four key steps: 1. Plan for agents: How organizations should identify high-value use cases for AI agents, select the right technology, prepare teams, and ensure data readiness for scaling and governance.   2. Govern and secure agents: How to address governance, security, and observability across an organization, along with baseline policies and tools that support consistent implementation across the organization. 3. Build agents: When to build single-agent or multi-agent systems, plus how Foundry and Copilot Studio fit into the build process to help establish organizational standards. 4. Manage agents: Best practices for integrating agents into operations and managing them over time, including cost optimization, administration, and measuring adoption success. Questions? If you want the guidance to cover other topics, reach out to me on LinkedIn (DM) or on Reddit (MicrosoftCAF) Thank you to my Microsoft colleagues for their insights:  Jason Bouska, Timo Salomäki, Daniel Söderholm, Wandenkolk Tinoco Neto, Sree Lakshmi Adigopula, Piyush Jain, Bilal Amjad, Jorge Garcia Ximenez, Ben Brauer, Pablo Carceller Gonzalez, Philip Fumey, John Lunn, Brian Swiger Thank you to the following Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals (MVPs): Artem Chernevskiy, Edgar McOchieng', Vesa Nopanen [MVP], Sakshi Kokardekar Luke Nyswonger, Martin Ekuan, Hans Yang, Annie Pearl

LLM hallucinations aren't bugs, they're compression artefacts. And we just figured out how to predict them before they happen. 400 stars in one week, the reception has been unreal. Our toolkit is open source and anyone can use it. https://lnkd.in/e4s3X8GK When your LLM confidently states that "Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo," it's not broken. It's doing exactly what it was trained to do: compress the entire internet into model weights, then decompress on demand. Sometimes, there isn't enough information to perfectly reconstruct rare facts, so it fills gaps with statistically plausible but wrong content. Think of it like a ZIP file corrupted during compression. The decompression algorithm still runs, but outputs garbage where data was lost. The breakthrough: We proved hallucinations occur when information budgets fall below mathematical thresholds. Using our Expectation-level Decompression Law (EDFL), we can calculate exactly how many bits of information are needed to prevent any specific hallucination, before generation even starts. This resolves a fundamental paradox: LLMs achieve near-perfect Bayesian performance on average, yet systematically fail on specific inputs. We proved they're "Bayesian in expectation, not in realisation", optimising average-case compression rather than worst-case reliability. Why this changes everything? Instead of treating hallucinations as inevitable, we can now: Calculate risk scores before generating any text Set guaranteed error bounds (e.g. 95%) Know precisely when to gather more context vs. abstain The full preprint is being released on arXiv this week. Until then, read the preprint PDF we uploaded here: https://lnkd.in/eRf_ecu3 The toolkit works with any OpenAI-compatible API. Zero retraining required. Provides mathematical SLA guarantees for compliance. Perfect for healthcare, finance, legal, anywhere errors aren't acceptable. The era of "trust me, bro" AI is ending. Welcome to bounded, predictable AI reliability. Big thanks to Ahmed K. Maggie C. for all the help putting this + the repo together! #AI #MachineLearning #ResponsibleAI #OpenSource #LLM #Innovation

🚀 GitHub Copilot is evolving from AI pair programmer to AI peer programmer, with enhanced reasoning capabilities, tool usage, and seamless integration into our dev environments. 🤖 It's becoming a member of your team, but only if it can fulfill 4 expectations: 1️⃣ Predictable: As AI agents become an increasingly inextricable part of the SDLC, developers need to intuitively understand what they can and can't do. 2️⃣ Steerable: LLMs are only as good as the context they’re given. Great AI agents have to allow easy iteration and refinement of suggestions. 3️⃣ Tolerable: AI models are non-deterministic – they can and will be wrong. So errors must be low-cost and non-disruptive, to prevent too much noise or “slop.” 4️⃣ Verifiable: Because source code isn’t static, it’s insufficient for it to simply “look right.” It also needs to “be right,” and therefore, behave as expected, adhere to best practices, be free of security issues, etc. Only when agents embrace these core principles will they be truly welcome on our teams. ✨ More on my blog https://lnkd.in/e3FPXSXc

If you’re an AI engineer building a full-stack GenAI application, this one’s for you. The open agentic stack has evolved. It’s no longer just about choosing the “best” foundation model. It’s about designing an interoperable pipeline, from serving to safety- that can scale, adapt, and ship. Let’s break it down 👇 🧠 1. Foundation Models Start with open, performant base models. → LLaMA 4 Maverick, Mistral‑Next‑22B, Qwen 3 Fusion, DeepSeek‑Coder 33B These models offer high capability-per-dollar and robust support for multi-turn reasoning, tool use, and fine-grained control. ⚙️ 2. Serving & Fine-Tuning You can’t scale without efficient inference. → vLLM, Text Generation Inference, BentoML for blazing-fast throughput → LoRA (PEFT) and Ollama for cost-effective fine-tuning If you’re not using adapter-based fine-tuning in 2025, you’re overpaying and underperforming. 🧩 3. Memory & Retrieval RAG isn’t enough, you need persistent agent memory. → Mem0, Weaviate, LanceDB, Qdrant support both vector retrieval and structured memory → Tools like Marqo and Qdrant simplify dense+metadata retrieval at scale → Model Context Protocol (MCP) is quickly becoming the new memory-sharing standard 🤖 4. Orchestration & Agent Frameworks Multi-agent systems are moving from research to production. → LangGraph = workflow-level control → AutoGen = goal-driven multi-agent conversations → CrewAI = role-based task delegation → Flowise + OpenDevin for visual, developer-friendly pipelines Pick based on agent complexity and latency budget, not popularity. 🛡️ 5. Evaluation & Safety Don’t ship without it. → AgentBench 2025, RAGAS, TruLens for benchmark-grade evals → PromptGuard 2, Zeno for dynamic prompt defense and human-in-the-loop observability → Safety-first isn’t optional, it’s operationally essential 👩💻 My Two Cents for AI Engineers: If you’re assembling your GenAI stack, here’s what I recommend: ✅ Start with open models like Qwen3 or DeepSeek R1, not just for cost, but because you’ll want to fine-tune and debug them freely ✅ Use vLLM or TGI for inference, and plug in LoRA adapters for rapid iteration ✅ Integrate Mem0 or Zep as your long-term memory layer and implement MCP to allow agents to share memory contextually ✅ Choose LangGraph for orchestration if you’re building structured flows; go with AutoGen or CrewAI for more autonomous agent behavior ✅ Evaluate everything, use AgentBench for capability, RAGAS for RAG quality, and PromptGuard2 for runtime security The stack is mature. The tools are open. The workflows are real. This is the best time to go from prototype to production. ----- Share this with your network ♻️ I write deep-dive blogs on Substack, follow along :) https://lnkd.in/dpBNr6Jg

Let's build a Real Time ML System to fraud. Step by step 🧵↓ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 💼 Every time your credit card is used online by someone (hopefully you), your card issuer (for example Visa, Mastercard or PayPal) has to verify if it is you the person trying to pay with the card. Otherwise, the transaction is blocked. Now the question is: ““𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗮 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁?”” And the answer is… a real time ML system! 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 📐 As any ML system that has existed, exists and will exist, this one can be broken down into 3 types pipelines 1️⃣ Feature pipelines 2️⃣ Training pipeline 3️⃣ Inference pipeline Let's go one by one 1️⃣ 𝗙𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 💾  The feature pipelines are the Python services that produce the inputs (aka features) our ML model needs to generate its predictions. In our case, we have (and I bet Visa has) at least 3 feature pipelines: ▣ 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹-𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 feature pipeline from recent transactional data. - runs 24/7 - consumes incoming data from an internal message bus (like Kafka, Redpanda) - transforms this data on-the-fly using a real-time data processing engine - saves the the final features in a feature store, like Hopsworks. ▣ 𝗕𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵 pipeline from historical features in the data warehouse. - runs daily - reads data from the data warehouse/lake, and - saves it into another feature group in our feature store, so it can be consumed by our ML model really fast. ▣ 𝗟𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗽𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲, so the ML model can be trained with supervised ML. Each completed transaction that is not claimed by the card owner within 6 months can be safely called non-fraudulent (class=0). We call it fraudulent (class=1) otherwise. Once we have these 3 feature pipelines up and running, we will start collecting valuable data, that we can use to train ML models. 2️⃣ 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 🏋🏽 We can use a supervised ML model (a boosting tree model like XGBoost does the job in most cases) to uncover any patterns between > the features available in your Feature Store, and > the transaction class: 0 = non-fraudulent, 1 = fraudulent. The final model is pushed to the model registry (like MLflow, Comet or Weights & Biases), so it can be loaded and used by our deployed model. And this is precisely what the last pipeline in our design does. 3️⃣ 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗽𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 🔮 The inference pipeline is a Python streaming application, that at start up loads the model from the registry into memory and for every incoming transaction > loads the freshest features from the store for that card_id, > feeds them to the model, and > outputs the predictions to another Kafka topic. These fraud scores can be then consumed by downstream services, to > Block the card, and > Send an SMS alert to the card owner, for example. BOOM! No dark magic. Just Real World ML. Follow Pau Labarta Bajo for more Real World ML

𝗟𝗟𝗠 𝘃𝘀. 𝗥𝗔𝗚 𝘃𝘀. 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗲-𝗧𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘃𝘀. 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘃𝘀. 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗜 — 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 I keep getting one question from teams building with GenAI: Which approach should we choose? This one-pager visual breaks down the trade-offs. Below is the practical guide I use on real projects. 𝟭) 𝗟𝗟𝗠 What it is: Prompt → model → answer. Use when: General knowledge, ideation, drafting, small utilities. Watch out for: Hallucinations on domain-specific facts; limited to model’s pretraining. 𝟮) 𝗥𝗔𝗚 (𝗥𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹-𝗔𝘂𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻) What it is: Query → retrieve context from a knowledge base → feed context + query to LLM → grounded answer. Model weights don’t change. Use when: You have proprietary docs, policies, catalogs, tickets, or logs that change frequently. Benefits: Lower cost than training, auditable sources, fast updates. Key tips: Good chunking, embeddings, metadata, and re-ranking determine quality more than the LLM choice. 𝟯) 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗲-𝗧𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 What it is: Train the model on input→output pairs to change its weights (LLM → LLM′). Use when: You need consistent style, domain tone, or task-specific behavior (classification, templated replies, structured outputs). Benefits: Lower prompt complexity, stable behavior, smaller inference tokens. Caveats: Needs clean, labeled data; versioning and evaluation are critical. 𝟰) 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 What it is: LLM + memory + tools/APIs with a think → act → observe loop. Use when: Tasks require multi-step reasoning, tool use (search, SQL, APIs), or state over time. Examples: Troubleshooting flows, data enrichment, workflow automation. Risks: Loops, tool misuse, latency. Use guardrails, timeouts, and action limits. 𝟱) 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗜 (𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀) What it is: Coordinated roles (planner, executor, critic) that plan → act → observe → learn from feedback. Use when: Complex processes with decomposition, review, and collaboration across specialized agents. Examples: Customer ops copilots, multi-step ETL with validation, enterprise workflows spanning multiple systems. Challenges: Orchestration, determinism, monitoring, and cost control. Metrics that matter Grounding: citation hit-rate, answer verifiability (RAG) Quality: task accuracy, pass@k, error rate Efficiency: latency, tokens, cost per resolution Safety: hallucination rate, tool misuse, policy violations Reliability: determinism, replayability, test coverage Design Tips: Start with RAG before touching fine-tuning; data beats weights early on. Keep prompts short; push knowledge to the retriever or the dataset. Add evaluation harnesses from day one (gold sets, unit tests for prompts/tools). Log everything: context windows, actions, failures, and human overrides. Treat agents like software: versioning, guardrails, circuit breakers, and audits.

Most L&D professionals learned the Kirkpatrick Model early on. Fewer have seen it applied beyond Level 1. Here's what each level can actually look like when you put it into practice, not just the textbook definition. ✨ Level 1: Reaction 🔹 Textbook version: Did learners find the training engaging and worth their time? ✅ In practice: Instead of "Did you enjoy this session?", ask "Was this relevant to the work you do?" and "Could you apply this right away?" ✅ Metric to track: Relevance and applicability ratings, not just satisfaction scores. ✨ Level 2: Learning 🔹 Textbook version: Did learners gain the intended knowledge or skills? ✅ In practice: Replace recall-based quizzes with scenario-based checks. Can the learner apply the concept to a situation they'd actually face? ✅ Metric to track: Pre/post assessment scores on scenario-based questions, not just "did you pass the quiz." ✨ Level 3: Behavior 🔹 Textbook version: Are learners applying what they learned on the job? ✅ In practice: 30/60/90-day check-ins, manager observations, or peer feedback on whether the new behavior is showing up in real work. ✅ Metric to track: % of participants demonstrating the target behavior, based on manager or peer input, not self-reported confidence. ✨ Level 4: Results 🔹 Textbook version: Did the training impact business outcomes? ✅ In practice: Pick one business metric the program was meant to influence, before you build it, not after, and track the change. ✅ Metric to track: Movement in that specific KPI (error rates, time-to-productivity, conversion rates, retention) compared to a baseline. Most programs are measured thoroughly at Level 1 and barely at all beyond it. But Levels 3 and 4 are where the "did this actually matter" conversation happens, and they are also where L&D earns a seat at the table. Which level does your organisation measure consistently, and which one do you wish you could measure better? #LearningAndDevelopment #LnD #KirkpatrickModel #TrainingEvaluation #InstructionalDesign #LearningMeasurement #TrainingAndDevelopment #LnDStrategy

Don't just blindly use LLMs, evaluate them to see if they fit into your criteria. Not all LLMs are created equal. Here’s how to measure whether they’re right for your use case👇 Evaluating LLMs is critical to assess their performance, reliability, and suitability for specific tasks. Without evaluation, it would be impossible to determine whether a model generates coherent, relevant, or factually correct outputs, particularly in applications like translation, summarization, or question-answering. Evaluation ensures models align with human expectations, avoid biases, and improve iteratively. Different metrics cater to distinct aspects of model performance:  Perplexity quantifies how well a model predicts a sequence (lower scores indicate better familiarity with the data), making it useful for gauging fluency. ROUGE-1 measures unigram (single-word) overlap between model outputs and references, ideal for tasks like summarization where content overlap matters. BLEU focuses on n-gram precision (e.g., exact phrase matches), commonly used in machine translation to assess accuracy. METEOR extends this by incorporating synonyms, paraphrases, and stemming, offering a more flexible semantic evaluation. Exact Match (EM) is the strictest metric, requiring verbatim alignment with the reference, often used in closed-domain tasks like factual QA where precision is paramount. Each metric reflects a trade-off: EM prioritizes literal correctness, while ROUGE and BLEU balance precision with recall. METEOR and Perplexity accommodate linguistic diversity, rewarding semantic coherence over exact replication. Choosing the right metric depends on the task—e.g., EM for factual accuracy in trivia, ROUGE for summarization breadth, and Perplexity for generative fluency. Collectively, these metrics provide a multifaceted view of LLM capabilities, enabling developers to refine models, mitigate errors, and align outputs with user needs. The table’s examples, such as EM scoring 0 for paraphrased answers, highlight how minor phrasing changes impact scores, underscoring the importance of context-aware metric selection. Know more about how to evaluate LLMs: https://lnkd.in/gfPBxrWc Here is my complete in-depth guide on evaluating LLMs: https://lnkd.in/gjWt9jRu Follow me on my YouTube channel so you don't miss any AI topic: https://lnkd.in/gMCpfMKh

Explaining the Evaluation method LLM-as-a-Judge (LLMaaJ). Token-based metrics like BLEU or ROUGE are still useful for structured tasks like translation or summarization. But for open-ended answers, RAG copilots, or complex enterprise prompts, they often miss the bigger picture. That’s where LLMaaJ changes the game. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘁? You use a powerful LLM as an evaluator, not a generator. It’s given: - The original question - The generated answer - And the retrieved context or gold answer 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀: ✅ Faithfulness to the source ✅ Factual accuracy ✅ Semantic alignment—even if phrased differently 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀: LLMaaJ captures what traditional metrics can’t. It understands paraphrasing. It flags hallucinations. It mirrors human judgment, which is critical when deploying GenAI systems in the enterprise. 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗟𝗟𝗠𝗮𝗮𝗝-𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘀: - Answer correctness - Answer faithfulness - Coherence, tone, and even reasoning quality 📌 If you’re building enterprise-grade copilots or RAG workflows, LLMaaJ is how you scale QA beyond manual reviews. To put LLMaaJ into practice, check out EvalAssist; a new tool from IBM Research. It offers a web-based UI to streamline LLM evaluations: - Refine your criteria iteratively using Unitxt - Generate structured evaluations - Export as Jupyter notebooks to scale effortlessly A powerful way to bring LLM-as-a-Judge into your QA stack. - Get Started guide: https://lnkd.in/g4QP3-Ue - Demo Site: https://lnkd.in/gUSrV65s - Github Repo: https://lnkd.in/gPVEQRtv - Whitepapers: https://lnkd.in/gnHi6SeW