Verimium
Back to task results

Agent trace

Production two-tower improvement gemini-3-8-flash-high-09

The full recorded conversation, expanded from start to finish: instructions, agent messages, and tool inputs and responses.

This recording includes 183 readable reasoning summaries, shown in full below.

Agent
gemini-3.8-flash · Gemini CLI · high effort
Recorded conversation
57:52 · 75 steps
Private reward
Not recorded · Invalid submission
Attempt cost
$1.38
  • Thinking
  • Model text
  • Tool call
  • Tool response
01

User context

+00:00
User context

<session_context> This is the Gemini CLI. We are setting up the context for our chat. Today's date is Tuesday, September 29, 2026 (formatted according to the user's locale). My operating system is: linux The project's temporary directory is: /home/agent/.gemini/tmp/app

  • Workspace Directories:
  • /app
  • Directory Structure:

Showing up to 200 items (files + folders).

/app/ └───solution/

</session_context>

02

Task instructions

+00:00
Task instructions

Improve a production music-discovery two-tower

You have joined the recommendations team for a music streaming service. The "Made for You" shelf is served by a mature production two-tower model. Its chronological data protocol and indexed serving path are sound, but its offline retrieval quality no longer clears the team's next launch gate.

Your job is to investigate the production model, improve its retrieval quality, and ship a better ranking artifact. Use the implementation and public validation data to form and test your own diagnosis.

The source used to reproduce the production model is included under /task/current_model/. You may copy it into /app/solution/, edit it, add tests, and improve its training objective, but keep the data protocol, two-tower serving contract, and evaluation boundary intact.

Production Context

The model must satisfy a strict request-time latency budget. Item vectors are precomputed offline. At request time, one user vector is computed from observed interaction history and compared with candidate item vectors by a batchable two-tower score. Do not introduce a cross-encoder, per-candidate sequence model, or user-ID lookup table.

The current trainer is a mature baseline with chronological internal validation. Focus your investigation on how its training objective selects and uses negative examples. Diagnose limitations in the current negative-sampling strategy and improve it under the fixed CPU budget. Validate changes with the public backtest. The final approach must still train and rank within the supplied CPU environment while preserving the serving and data boundaries above.

What You Have

All public inputs are under /task/data/. A stage cutoff is the timestamp at which observed history and candidate eligibility are frozen for a ranking. The public validation stage cutoff is 24786800, when train_* ends. A 30-minute gap precedes the seven-day val_* window. For the final submission, that validation window becomes observed history, and another 30-minute gap precedes the hidden seven-day outcome window.

The package includes:

  • /task/current_model/train_current_model.py: the production training and ranking script. It can reproduce the public validation ranking and produce a hidden-test submission after refitting.
  • /task/current_model/two_tower_model.py: model primitives used by the production script.
  • /task/evaluate_public.py: the public validation evaluator for development.
  • /task/data/validation_eligible_candidates.npz and /task/data/test_eligible_candidates.npz: platform-owned candidate sets for the validation and hidden-test cutoffs.
  • /task/data/validation_preference_state.parquet and /task/data/test_preference_state.parquet: active explicit preference state at the corresponding cutoffs.
  • /task/requirements.txt: the exact offline Python distribution inventory.

You can reproduce the production public backtest with:

python /task/current_model/train_current_model.py \
  --stage validation \
  --public-dir /task \
  --output /app/solution/production_validation.parquet
python /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/production_validation.parquet

Data

For each event family there is a train_*.parquet and val_*.parquet file:

FamilyMeaningColumns
listensPlayback eventsuid, timestamp, item_id, is_organic, played_ratio_pct, track_length_seconds
likesExplicit positive actionsuid, timestamp, item_id, is_organic
dislikesExplicit negative actionsuid, timestamp, item_id, is_organic
unlikesReversal of a prior likeuid, timestamp, item_id, is_organic
undislikesReversal of a prior dislikeuid, timestamp, item_id, is_organic

is_organic=1 means the listener sought out the track; 0 means the action came through a recommendation surface. A listen is a conventional positive at 50% completion. The discovery-quality objective below uses the stronger 80% threshold.

The two public windows have different roles:

  1. For model development and selection, train only from train_* and score the subsequent val_* outcomes.
  2. After selecting an improvement, refit it on train_* + val_*. At hidden-test time the validation events are observed history, not recommendable outcomes.

Do not use val_* events as features when measuring a validation ranking. They may and should be used when refitting the final hidden-test ranker.

Additional files under /task/data/:

  • candidate_catalog.parquet: the 30,000 retrieval-catalog tracks, ordered by training positive-listen popularity.
  • target_users.parquet: users with at least 20 positive listens in the 90 days before the training cutoff, selected without future labels.
  • validation_preference_state.parquet: active explicit state at the training cutoff, for validation ranking.
  • test_preference_state.parquet: active explicit state after validation, for the final hidden-test ranking. State is liked or disliked; a pair may have both active channels.
  • validation_eligible_candidates.npz and test_eligible_candidates.npz: cutoff-correct candidate sets for every target user. Each contains aligned arrays uids, item_ids, and packed_eligible. For user row r, recover the Boolean item mask with np.unpackbits(packed_eligible[r], count=len(item_ids), bitorder="little").

Validation candidates exclude all train_* encounters. Test candidates exclude all train_* and val_* encounters. Future test interactions are hidden and used only by the separate Harbor verifier.

Discovery Objective

Rank only the candidates returned for the relevant cutoff. Relevance is based on organic behavior in the immediately following window:

  • grade 3: the user organically likes the track;
  • grade 1: the user organically listens to at least 80% of the track;
  • grade 0: otherwise.

If both positive events occur, grade 3 wins. Ranking quality is measured with graded NDCG@10. DCG uses gain 2^grade - 1 and discount 1/log2(rank + 1), then averages per-user NDCG over users with at least one relevant item.

The public evaluator reports this same objective for development, but its score is not a separate acceptance stage. Final acceptance is determined on the hidden test using the same objective. The Yambda logs contain interactions, not impression propensities; treat the organic objective as a robust offline target, not as a causal estimate of online lift.

Deliverable

Submit one final ranking as /app/solution/submission.parquet or /app/solution/submission.csv. It must be a regular file, not a symbolic link. If both files exist, the verifier evaluates submission.parquet and ignores submission.csv.

The ranking must:

  • include the columns uid, item_id, and rank; only these columns are evaluated;
  • use finite, integer-valued entries in all three required columns;
  • cover exactly the users in target_users.parquet, with no missing or extra users;
  • contain exactly 100 rows and 100 distinct items for every target user;
  • contain every integer rank from 1 through 100 exactly once per user; and
  • use only items present in that user's test_eligible_candidates.npz candidate set.

Also leave the improved implementation used to build the artifact at /app/solution/train_current_model.py, along with any local modules it imports. A concise /app/solution/README.md with the diagnosis, before-and-after public score, model change, and submission command is useful for the experiment record, but it is not an automated acceptance gate.

Constraints

  • Write deliverables and intermediate artifacts only under /app/solution/.
  • Treat /task/ and the installed Python environment as read-only.
  • Do not invoke nested agents or attempt to access verifier files, credentials, other trials, or host paths.
  • Do not install packages or use network access except for the model-provider connection managed by Harbor.
  • Do not alter cutoff definitions, target users, candidate eligibility, or relevance labels.
  • Improve the production pipeline in place. Do not substitute an unrelated model family or evade the indexed two-tower serving constraint.
  • The environment includes CPU PyTorch 2.8.0. No accelerator is available.
  • You have up to 60 minutes. Prioritize measured validation improvements, a correct final refit, and a valid submission over broad architecture search.
  • Keep the best valid submission saved throughout the attempt so it survives the deadline.
03

update_topic command

+00:14
Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Exploring Model Enhancements

My current focus is on dissecting the existing two-tower retrieval model for production music discovery. I'm delving into the problem statement, identifying key constraints, and clarifying the expected deliverables. Concurrently, I'm conducting an in-depth review of the current codebase to lay the groundwork for improvements.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Investigating Negative Sampling

I'm currently deep-diving into the production music retrieval model, specifically analyzing its negative sampling strategy. My aim is to pinpoint limitations within the current approach and devise improvements, all while adhering to the specified CPU budget and environment constraints.

Tool callupdate_topicTool call Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "title": "Baseline Investigation and Benchmarking",
  "strategic_intent": "Explore the codebase, inspect the files in /task, and run the baseline validation backtest to establish the initial benchmark.",
  "summary": "Starting the investigation into the production two-tower music recommendation model. We will inspect /task files, understand the data structures and baseline performance, and run the baseline validation evaluation."
}

Tool response

Current topic: "Baseline Investigation and Benchmarking"
Topic summary: Starting the investigation into the production two-tower music recommendation model. We will inspect /task files, understand the data structures and baseline performance, and run the baseline validation evaluation.

Strategic Intent: Explore the codebase, inspect the files in /task, and run the baseline validation backtest to establish the initial benchmark.
04

list_directory command

+00:16
Tool calllist_directoryTool call Error

Tool call · Input

{
  "dir_path": "/task"
}

Tool response · Tool error

Path not in workspace: Attempted path "/task" resolves outside the allowed workspace directories: /app or the project temp directory: /home/agent/.gemini/tmp/app
05

List files in /task and subdirectories to inspect repository structure

+00:19
Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Investigating File Access

I'm currently exploring the limitations of file system access, specifically whether functions like list_directory and read_file are restricted to the /app directory or the agent's temporary directory. I'll be checking the behavior of read_file and run_shell_command to confirm these potential constraints.

Tool callrun_shell_commandList files in /task and subdirectories to inspect repository structure Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "ls -la /task && ls -la /task/current_model && ls -la /task/data",
  "description": "List files in /task and subdirectories to inspect repository structure"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: total 40
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root 4096 Sep 29 02:00 .
drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4096 Sep 29 02:03 ..
-r--r--r-- 1 root root    0 Sep 29 01:58 .keep
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root 4096 Sep 29 01:58 current_model
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root 4096 Sep 29 01:59 data
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 5774 Sep 29 01:58 evaluate_public.py
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 8265 Sep 29 01:58 ranking_evaluation.py
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 1295 Sep 29 01:58 requirements.txt
total 104
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root  4096 Sep 29 01:58 .
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root  4096 Sep 29 02:00 ..
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 80058 Sep 29 01:58 train_current_model.py
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 15985 Sep 29 01:58 two_tower_model.py
total 347392
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root      4096 Sep 29 01:59 .
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root      4096 Sep 29 02:00 ..
-r--r--r-- 1 root root    349352 Sep 29 01:58 candidate_catalog.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root     84127 Sep 29 01:58 target_users.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root   7736341 Sep 29 01:58 test_eligible_candidates.npz
-r--r--r-- 1 root root   1092329 Sep 29 01:59 test_preference_state.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root    857213 Sep 29 01:58 train_dislikes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root   5374652 Sep 29 01:58 train_likes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 319183255 Sep 29 01:58 train_listens.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root    155988 Sep 29 01:58 train_undislikes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root   1855885 Sep 29 01:58 train_unlikes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root     36571 Sep 29 01:58 val_dislikes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root    298484 Sep 29 01:58 val_likes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root   9947609 Sep 29 01:58 val_listens.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root      7845 Sep 29 01:58 val_undislikes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root     72536 Sep 29 01:58 val_unlikes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root   7573821 Sep 29 01:58 validation_eligible_candidates.npz
-r--r--r-- 1 root root   1061761 Sep 29 01:59 validation_preference_state.parquet
Process Group PGID: 1612
</untrusted_context>
06

Copy current model files to /app/solution and verify

+00:21
Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Exploring Model Training

I'm currently examining the Python scripts within the /task/ directory, specifically focusing on train_current_model.py and two_tower_model.py. My immediate goal is to understand the model's architecture and training procedures. I will then proceed to copy relevant code segments.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCopy current model files to /app/solution and verify Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Copy current model files to /app/solution and verify",
  "command": "cp -r /task/current_model/* /app/solution/ && ls -la /app/solution"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: total 108
drwxr-xr-x 1 agent agent  4096 Sep 29 02:04 .
drwxr-xr-x 1 agent agent  4096 Sep 29 02:00 ..
-r--r--r-- 1 agent agent 80058 Sep 29 02:04 train_current_model.py
-r--r--r-- 1 agent agent 15985 Sep 29 02:04 two_tower_model.py
Process Group PGID: 1617
</untrusted_context>
07

Make files writable in /app/solution

+00:25
Tool callrun_shell_commandMake files writable in /app/solution Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Make files writable in /app/solution",
  "command": "chmod u+w /app/solution/* && ls -la /app/solution"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: total 108
drwxr-xr-x 1 agent agent  4096 Sep 29 02:04 .
drwxr-xr-x 1 agent agent  4096 Sep 29 02:00 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 agent agent 80058 Sep 29 02:04 train_current_model.py
-rw-r--r-- 1 agent agent 15985 Sep 29 02:04 two_tower_model.py
Process Group PGID: 1621
</untrusted_context>
08

Check CPU cores and available memory

+00:27
Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck CPU cores and available memory Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "lscpu | grep \"CPU(s):\\|Model name\" && free -h",
  "description": "Check CPU cores and available memory"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: CPU(s):                                  8
Model name:                              AMD EPYC 7R13 Processor
NUMA node0 CPU(s):                       0-7
/usr/bin/bash: line 4: free: command not found
Exit Code: 127
Process Group PGID: 1625
</untrusted_context>
09

Check memory via /proc/meminfo

+00:29
Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck memory via /proc/meminfo Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check memory via /proc/meminfo",
  "command": "cat /proc/meminfo | grep -E \"MemTotal|MemAvailable\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: MemTotal:       15988968 kB
MemAvailable:   14513188 kB
Process Group PGID: 1630
</untrusted_context>
10

Check Python and PyTorch version and default threads

+00:31
Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck Python and PyTorch version and default threads Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check Python and PyTorch version and default threads",
  "command": "python3 --version && python3 -c \"import torch; print(torch.__version__, torch.get_num_threads())\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Python 3.12.13
2.8.0+cpu 4
Process Group PGID: 1634
</untrusted_context>
11

Inspect evaluate_public.py

+00:36
Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect evaluate_public.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Inspect evaluate_public.py",
  "command": "cat /task/evaluate_public.py"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: #!/usr/bin/env python3
"""Score a validation-stage ranking against public discovery labels.

``build_task.py`` publishes this module with the solver-visible task files. It
loads target users, validation eligibility, and validation-window events from
the adjacent ``data`` directory, then evaluates one ranking supplied on the
command line. Stage-independent mechanics come from the adjacent public
``ranking_evaluation.py`` module. The builder installs the same checked-in
module in the private judge, so public and private scoring mechanics cannot
drift. A relevant candidate receives grade 3 for an organic like or grade 1 for
an organic listen with at least 80 percent completion; a like takes precedence
when both events exist.

Before scoring, the ranking must contain exactly 100 distinct eligible items
for every target user, with integer-valued ``uid``, ``item_id``, and ``rank``
columns and ranks 1 through 100 exactly once per user. Extra columns are
ignored. Quality is graded NDCG@10, averaged only over users who have at least
one eligible relevant item in the validation window.

The evaluator prints a JSON object containing the model path and scores. It
does not apply the task's pass threshold; its purpose is model development and
selection. The private judge applies the threshold to the final submission.

Usage::

    python evaluate_public.py <validation-ranking.parquet|csv>
"""
from __future__ import annotations

import json
import sys
from pathlib import Path

import pandas as pd

from ranking_evaluation import (
    CandidateSet,
    RankingValidationError,
    ranked_items,
    read_ranking,
    score_rankings,
    validate_ranking,
)


HERE = Path(__file__).resolve().parent
DATA = HERE / "data"
LISTEN_STRONG = 80


def validation_truth(
    eligibility: CandidateSet, targets: set[int]
) -> dict[int, dict[int, int]]:
    """Build cutoff-correct graded relevance from public validation events.

    Only target-user events for eligible candidates are retained. Organic
    listens completed to at least 80 percent receive grade 1, and organic likes
    receive grade 3. Repeated user-item events are collapsed, and processing
    likes second ensures that grade 3 wins over grade 1.

    Args:
        eligibility: Validation-cutoff candidate membership service.
        targets: Complete set of target user IDs.

    Returns:
        A nested ``uid -> item_id -> grade`` mapping. Users without an eligible
        relevant event are omitted.
    """
    listens = pd.read_parquet(DATA / "val_listens.parquet")
    likes = pd.read_parquet(DATA / "val_likes.parquet")
    strong = listens[
        listens.uid.isin(targets)
        & (listens.is_organic == 1)
        & (listens.played_ratio_pct >= LISTEN_STRONG)
    ][["uid", "item_id"]].drop_duplicates()
    organic_likes = likes[
        likes.uid.isin(targets) & (likes.is_organic == 1)
    ][["uid", "item_id"]].drop_duplicates()

    graded: dict[int, dict[int, int]] = {}
    for raw_uid, raw_item in strong.itertuples(index=False, name=None):
        uid, item = int(raw_uid), int(raw_item)
        if eligibility.is_eligible(uid, item):
            graded.setdefault(uid, {})[item] = 1
    for raw_uid, raw_item in organic_likes.itertuples(index=False, name=None):
        uid, item = int(raw_uid), int(raw_item)
        if eligibility.is_eligible(uid, item):
            graded.setdefault(uid, {})[item] = 3
    return graded


def load_submission(
    path: Path, eligibility: CandidateSet, targets: set[int]
) -> dict[int, list[int]]:
    """Load and validate a public validation ranking.

    Files ending in ``.parquet`` are read as parquet; every other suffix is
    read as CSV. The required columns must be integer-valued, cover exactly the
    target-user set, contain 100 rows and ranks 1 through 100 per user, avoid
    duplicate user-item pairs, and contain only cutoff-eligible items.

    Args:
        path: Ranking file to read.
        eligibility: Validation-cutoff candidate membership service.
        targets: Exact set of users the ranking must cover.

    Returns:
        A ``uid -> ranked item IDs`` mapping ordered by ascending rank.

    Raises:
        ValueError: If the ranking violates the required schema or invariants.
    """
    frame = validate_ranking(read_ranking(path), targets)
    if not all(
        eligibility.is_eligible(uid, item)
        for uid, item in frame[["uid", "item_id"]].itertuples(index=False, name=None)
    ):
        raise RankingValidationError(
            "submission contains an item rejected by eligibility service"
        )
    return ranked_items(frame)


def score(
    ranked: dict[int, list[int]],
    graded: dict[int, dict[int, int]],
) -> dict[str, float | int]:
    """Aggregate per-user NDCG@10 over users with public relevance labels.

    Args:
        ranked: Ranked item IDs for every target user.
        graded: Eligible validation relevance keyed by user and item.

    Returns:
        The six-decimal ``quality_ndcg@10`` value and number of scored users.
    """
    return score_rankings(ranked, graded)


def main() -> None:
    """Run the public evaluator CLI and print its JSON score report."""
    targets_frame = pd.read_parquet(DATA / "target_users.parquet")
    targets = set(targets_frame.uid.astype(int))
    eligibility = CandidateSet(DATA / "validation_eligible_candidates.npz")
    graded = validation_truth(eligibility, targets)

    if len(sys.argv) != 2:
        raise SystemExit(
            "usage: evaluate_public.py <validation-ranking.parquet|csv>"
        )
    path = Path(sys.argv[1])
    ranked = load_submission(path, eligibility, targets)
    print(json.dumps({"model": str(path), "scores": score(ranked, graded)}, indent=2))


if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()
Process Group PGID: 1645
</untrusted_context>
12

Inspect ranking_evaluation.py

+00:37
Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect ranking_evaluation.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "cat /task/ranking_evaluation.py",
  "description": "Inspect ranking_evaluation.py"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: """Shared public primitives for Yambda discovery-ranking evaluation.

Both the solver-visible validation evaluator and the private submission judge
import this module from the generated task's ``public`` directory. It owns the
stage-independent contract: reading a ranking, validating its shape, converting
it to per-user rank order, looking up packed candidate eligibility, and
computing graded NDCG@10.

The module deliberately contains no event-derived labels, private artifact
paths, or pass thresholds. Each evaluator supplies its own relevance data and
per-cutoff eligibility checks around these common operations.
"""
from __future__ import annotations

from pathlib import Path

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd


__all__ = [
    "CandidateSet",
    "QUALITY_K",
    "RankingValidationError",
    "REQUIRED_COLUMNS",
    "TOP_N",
    "ndcg_at_k",
    "ranked_items",
    "read_ranking",
    "score_rankings",
    "validate_ranking",
]

TOP_N = 100
QUALITY_K = 10
REQUIRED_COLUMNS = ("uid", "item_id", "rank")


class RankingValidationError(ValueError):
    """Report a ranking-schema or structural-contract violation."""


class CandidateSet:
    """Provide membership lookups over one packed candidate-set archive.

    The archive contains aligned ``uids``, ``item_ids``, and
    ``packed_eligible`` arrays. Candidate column ``c`` is represented by bit
    ``c % 8`` of byte ``c // 8`` using little-endian bit order. Arrays are
    copied into memory so they remain valid after the archive is closed.
    """

    def __init__(self, path: Path):
        """Load an eligibility archive and build ID-to-position indexes.

        Args:
            path: Path to a ``.npz`` archive with the candidate-set schema.
        """
        with np.load(path, allow_pickle=False) as artifact:
            self.uids = artifact["uids"].astype(np.int64, copy=True)
            self.item_ids = artifact["item_ids"].astype(np.int64, copy=True)
            self.packed = artifact["packed_eligible"].astype(np.uint8, copy=True)
        self.uid_row = {int(uid): row for row, uid in enumerate(self.uids)}
        self.item_column = {
            int(item): column for column, item in enumerate(self.item_ids)
        }

    def is_eligible(self, uid: int, item_id: int) -> bool:
        """Return whether ``item_id`` is eligible for ``uid``.

        IDs absent from the target-user or candidate-item arrays are treated as
        ineligible rather than raising an exception.

        Args:
            uid: Target user ID to query.
            item_id: Candidate item ID to query.

        Returns:
            ``True`` only when the corresponding packed eligibility bit is set.
        """
        row = self.uid_row.get(int(uid))
        column = self.item_column.get(int(item_id))
        if row is None or column is None:
            return False
        byte, bit = divmod(column, 8)
        return bool((int(self.packed[row, byte]) >> bit) & 1)


def read_ranking(path: Path) -> pd.DataFrame:
    """Read a parquet or CSV ranking into a pandas frame.

    Args:
        path: Input path. A ``.parquet`` suffix selects parquet; every other
            suffix is interpreted as CSV.

    Returns:
        The ranking frame as loaded by pandas.
    """
    return pd.read_parquet(path) if path.suffix == ".parquet" else pd.read_csv(path)


def validate_ranking(
    frame: pd.DataFrame,
    targets: set[int],
) -> pd.DataFrame:
    """Normalize and validate the stage-independent ranking contract.

    Required values must be finite integers. The user set must exactly match
    ``targets``; every user must have 100 rows, distinct items, and each rank
    from 1 through 100 exactly once. Cutoff-specific candidate eligibility is
    intentionally left to the calling evaluator.

    Args:
        frame: Raw ranking frame. Extra columns are discarded from an internal
            copy; the caller's frame is not modified.
        targets: Exact set of target user IDs the ranking must cover.

    Returns:
        A normalized frame containing only the required ``int64`` columns.

    Raises:
        RankingValidationError: If the ranking violates the shared contract.
    """
    required = list(REQUIRED_COLUMNS)
    if not all(column in frame for column in required):
        raise RankingValidationError(f"submission requires columns {required}")

    normalized = frame[required].copy()
    for column in required:
        numeric = pd.to_numeric(normalized[column], errors="coerce")
        values = numeric.to_numpy(dtype=float)
        if numeric.isna().any() or not np.isfinite(values).all():
            raise RankingValidationError(
                f"submission {column} must be finite numeric values"
            )
        if not np.equal(numeric, np.floor(numeric)).all():
            raise RankingValidationError(
                f"submission {column} must contain integers"
            )
        normalized[column] = numeric.astype(np.int64)

    submitted_users = set(map(int, normalized.uid.unique()))
    if submitted_users != targets:
        raise RankingValidationError(
            f"submission user set mismatch: missing={len(targets - submitted_users)} "
            f"extra={len(submitted_users - targets)}"
        )
    counts = normalized.groupby("uid").size()
    if not (counts == TOP_N).all():
        raise RankingValidationError(
            f"submission must contain exactly {TOP_N} rows for every target user"
        )
    if normalized.duplicated(["uid", "item_id"]).any():
        raise RankingValidationError(
            "submission contains duplicate (uid, item_id) pairs"
        )
    valid_ranks = set(range(1, TOP_N + 1))
    ranks_are_valid = normalized.groupby("uid")["rank"].apply(
        lambda values: set(map(int, values)) == valid_ranks
    )
    if not ranks_are_valid.all():
        raise RankingValidationError(
            f"each user must have every rank from 1 through {TOP_N} exactly once"
        )
    return normalized


def ranked_items(frame: pd.DataFrame) -> dict[int, list[int]]:
    """Convert a validated ranking frame to ordered items keyed by user.

    Args:
        frame: Frame that has passed :func:`validate_ranking`.

    Returns:
        A ``uid -> item IDs`` mapping ordered by ascending rank.
    """
    ordered = frame.sort_values(["uid", "rank"])
    return {
        int(uid): list(map(int, values))
        for uid, values in ordered.groupby("uid").item_id
    }


def ndcg_at_k(ranked: list[int], gold: dict[int, int], k: int) -> float:
    """Compute graded normalized discounted cumulative gain at ``k``.

    Relevance gain is ``2**grade - 1`` and the discount at one-based rank
    ``r`` is ``1 / log2(r + 1)``. Items absent from ``gold`` have grade zero.

    Args:
        ranked: Item IDs in predicted rank order.
        gold: Mapping from relevant item IDs to integer relevance grades.
        k: Maximum number of predicted positions to score.

    Returns:
        For a valid duplicate-free ranking, NDCG in ``[0, 1]``; returns
        ``0.0`` when the ideal gain is zero.
    """
    gains = np.asarray([gold.get(item, 0) for item in ranked[:k]], dtype=np.float64)
    discounts = 1.0 / np.log2(np.arange(2, len(gains) + 2))
    dcg = float(np.sum((np.power(2.0, gains) - 1.0) * discounts))
    ideal = np.asarray(sorted(gold.values(), reverse=True)[:k], dtype=np.float64)
    ideal_discounts = 1.0 / np.log2(np.arange(2, len(ideal) + 2))
    idcg = float(np.sum((np.power(2.0, ideal) - 1.0) * ideal_discounts))
    return dcg / idcg if idcg else 0.0


def score_rankings(
    ranked: dict[int, list[int]],
    graded: dict[int, dict[int, int]],
) -> dict[str, float | int]:
    """Aggregate per-user NDCG@10 over users with relevance labels.

    Args:
        ranked: Ranked item IDs for every target user.
        graded: Relevant item grades keyed by user and item.

    Returns:
        The six-decimal ``quality_ndcg@10`` value and number of scored users.
    """
    quality = float(
        np.mean(
            [
                ndcg_at_k(ranked[uid], gold, QUALITY_K)
                for uid, gold in graded.items()
            ]
        )
    )
    return {
        "quality_ndcg@10": round(quality, 6),
        "quality_users": len(graded),
    }
Process Group PGID: 1648
</untrusted_context>
13

Check line counts of model and training script

+00:40
Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck line counts of model and training script Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check line counts of model and training script",
  "command": "wc -l /app/solution/two_tower_model.py /app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: 433 /app/solution/two_tower_model.py
 2164 /app/solution/train_current_model.py
 2597 total
Process Group PGID: 1651
</untrusted_context>
14

Run the production baseline model on the validation stage

+00:42
Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Running Baseline Validation

I'm initiating the baseline validation backtest now. My primary focus is to establish the execution time and the initial performance score using the provided command. This will serve as our benchmark for subsequent iterations.

Tool callrun_shell_commandRun the production baseline model on the validation stage Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Run the production baseline model on the validation stage",
  "command": "python /task/current_model/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --output /app/solution/production_validation.parquet"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: loaded explicit events: rows=720,270 users=8,220
prepared users=1,000 tokens=2,090,746 states=35,727 elapsed=4.9s
prepared users=2,000 tokens=4,301,266 states=71,242 elapsed=10.0s
prepared users=3,000 tokens=6,486,146 states=109,471 elapsed=15.2s
prepared users=4,000 tokens=8,793,043 states=148,210 elapsed=20.6s
prepared users=5,000 tokens=10,992,205 states=182,596 elapsed=25.5s
prepared users=6,000 tokens=13,061,727 states=217,148 elapsed=30.3s
prepared users=7,000 tokens=15,334,418 states=256,914 elapsed=35.9s
prepared users=8,000 tokens=17,462,672 states=296,703 elapsed=41.2s
prepared users=9,000 tokens=19,568,405 states=331,551 elapsed=46.0s
target users without qualifying catalog sequence=7
prepared stage=validation sequence_users=9,135 tokens=20,056,329 next_item_targets=20,047,194 states=339,133
chronological BCE window: train=1,052,953 validation=130,103 selected=1,183,056 discarded_old_targets=18,864,138 all=20,047,194
inbatch correction: min=0.250 mean_on_targets=1.001 max=4.000
target weighting=organic-strong min=0.250 mean=0.575 max=1.000
full-history false-negative filter: users=9,135 unique_user_items=5,524,275 bytes=34,256,250
epoch=1/1 batches=250 targets=987,417 batch_bce=0.547529 running_bce=0.541614 elapsed=198.5s
epoch=1/1 train_loss=0.53984 validation_loss=0.49664 pair_accuracy=0.755 train_targets=1,052,953 validation_targets=130,103 train_seconds=211.5 validation_seconds=15.8
restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch=1 loss=0.496636
ranked users=1,024/8,456
ranked users=2,048/8,456
ranked users=3,072/8,456
ranked users=4,096/8,456
ranked users=5,120/8,456
ranked users=6,144/8,456
ranked users=7,168/8,456
ranked users=8,192/8,456
ranked users=8,456/8,456
{
  "baseline": "yambda-windowed-sequence-two-tower-base",
  "stage": "validation",
  "output": "/app/solution/production_validation.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 361.753,
  "public_inputs_only": true,
  "architecture": {
    "family": "pure-windowed-sequence-two-tower",
    "sequence_training": "every-adjacent-target-within-recent-chronological-window",
    "sequence_encoder": "one-layer-GRU-dense-timestep-loss",
    "bptt_hidden_state": "carried-and-detached",
    "model_selection": "chronological-validation-BCE-early-stopping",
    "loss_execution": "gradient-accumulated-microbatches",
    "user_id_embedding": false,
    "user_mlp": "582-512-256-192",
    "item_mlp": "196-512-256-192",
    "normalization": "none",
    "score": "raw-dot-product",
    "objective": "sample-weighted-BCE-at-every-timestep",
    "negative_sampling": "24-uniform-plus-8-propensity-corrected-inbatch",
    "false_negative_filter": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "organic-strong"
  },
  "config": {
    "bptt_steps": 100,
    "user_batch_size": 64,
    "embedding_dim": 192,
    "hidden_dim": 192,
    "user_hidden_1": 512,
    "user_hidden_2": 256,
    "item_hidden_1": 512,
    "item_hidden_2": 256,
    "dropout": 0.05,
    "epochs": 1,
    "learning_rate": 0.001,
    "weight_decay": 1e-05,
    "gradient_clip": 2.0,
    "loss_microbatch_size": 65536,
    "uniform_negatives": 24,
    "inbatch_negatives": 8,
    "inbatch_correction_power": 0.5,
    "inbatch_correction_min": 0.25,
    "inbatch_correction_max": 4.0,
    "negative_filter_scope": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "organic-strong",
    "ordinary_target_weight": 0.25,
    "organic_strong_target_weight": 1.0,
    "organic_like_target_weight": 3.0,
    "discovery_horizon_days": 7,
    "validation_fraction": 0.1,
    "max_train_targets_per_user": 128,
    "max_validation_targets_per_user": 16,
    "early_stopping_patience": 1,
    "early_stopping_min_delta": 0.0001,
    "seed": 29
  },
  "sequence_tokens": 20056329,
  "all_next_item_targets": 20047194,
  "selected_training_targets": 1052953,
  "selected_validation_targets": 130103,
  "discarded_old_targets": 18864138,
  "training_history": [
    {
      "epoch": 1.0,
      "loss": 0.5398380464060987,
      "positive_logit": 0.7427799578629043,
      "negative_logit": -0.6222247021203207,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.7547733612041563,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 632551.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 211.47897834499997,
      "validation_loss": 0.49663621530354346,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 78769.25,
      "validation_seconds": 15.796481195999945
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.603016972541809,
    "query_norm_std": 0.7697497606277466,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.7570281028747559,
    "item_norm_std": 0.8279485702514648
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
Process Group PGID: 1654
</untrusted_context>
15

Evaluate public validation ranking of the baseline model

+07:35
Tool callrun_shell_commandEvaluate public validation ranking of the baseline model Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/production_validation.parquet",
  "description": "Evaluate public validation ranking of the baseline model"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: {
  "model": "/app/solution/production_validation.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.02128,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 1685
</untrusted_context>
16

grep_search command

+07:43
Tool callgrep_searchTool call Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "dir_path": "/app/solution",
  "pattern": "def "
}

Tool response

Found 57 matches for pattern "def " in path "/app/solution":
---
File: train_current_model.py
L82:     def read(cls, path: Path) -> "CandidateSet":
L118:     def lengths(self) -> np.ndarray:
L122:     def target_count(self) -> int:
L136:     def selected_count(self) -> int:
L140: def log(message: str) -> None:
L144: def seed_everything(seed: int) -> None:
L150: def model_config(config: Config) -> base.TowerConfig:
L174: def append_state_snapshot(
L190: def causal_activity_features(
L247: def build_sequence_parts(
L314: def final_user_features(
L341: def prepare_data(
L471: def cache_metadata(stage: str, config: Config) -> dict[str, object]:
L481: def save_cache(
L493: def load_cache(path: Path, stage: str, config: Config) -> SequenceData:
L511: def load_or_prepare(
L534: def build_item_correction(
L578: def build_known_positive_filter(
L609: def invalid_full_history_negatives(
L630: def draw_full_history_filtered_negatives(
L724: def draw_training_negatives(
L763: def event_sequence(
L774: def pool_explicit_states(
L798: def user_queries(
L813: def candidate_vectors(
L828: def history_windows(
L845: def corrected_negative_loss(
L867: def retained_target_window_starts(
L888: def chronological_target_partition(
L914: def load_organic_like_outcomes(
L955: def build_target_weights(
L1035: def build_dense_block(
L1111: def score_target_microbatches(
L1198: def release_accelerator_cache(device: torch.device) -> None:
L1203: def run_training_epoch(
L1364: def evaluate_validation_bce(
L1488: def snapshot_model(model: nn.Module) -> dict[str, torch.Tensor]:
L1495: def save_epoch_checkpoint(
L1521: def train_model(
L1782: def inference_queries(
L1861: def rank_candidates(
L1912: def write_ranking(frame: pd.DataFrame, output: Path) -> None:
L1922: def main() -> int:
---
File: two_tower_model.py
L65: def log(message: str) -> None:
L69: def build_item_features(catalog: pd.DataFrame) -> np.ndarray:
L90: def _combine_listen_chunks(parts: list[ListenEvents]) -> ListenEvents:
L106: def iter_listen_users(
L157: def merge_listen_streams(
L175: def load_explicit_events(
L228: def empty_explicit_events() -> ExplicitEvents:
L238: def pack_active_items(
L251: def load_inference_state(
L287:     def __init__(self, item_features: np.ndarray, config: TowerConfig) -> None:
L332:     def _mean_context_channel(self, items: torch.Tensor) -> torch.Tensor:
L339:     def encode_items(self, items: torch.Tensor) -> torch.Tensor:
L346: def invalid_negative_mask(
L363: def draw_filtered_mixed_negatives(
---
17

read_file two_tower_model.py

+07:46
Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Exploring Model Building Blocks

I'm currently examining the function names within train_current_model.py. This is providing initial insights into the model's architecture and the distinct steps involved in its construction and training process, particularly around data filtering and negative sample generation.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/two_tower_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 433,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/two_tower_model.py",
  "start_line": 280
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 280-433 of 434 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 434.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
            destination[row, : len(retained)] = retained.astype(np.uint16)
    return liked, disliked, like_counts, dislike_counts


class SequentialTwoTower(nn.Module):
    """Order-sensitive user tower and independent catalog-aware item tower."""

    def __init__(self, item_features: np.ndarray, config: TowerConfig) -> None:
        super().__init__()
        n_items, n_item_features = item_features.shape
        dim = config.embedding_dim
        self.n_items = n_items
        self.context_embedding = nn.Embedding(
            n_items + 1, dim, padding_idx=n_items
        )
        self.event_projection = nn.Sequential(
            nn.Linear(dim + 3, config.hidden_dim),
            nn.GELU(),
        )
        self.sequence_encoder = nn.GRU(
            input_size=config.hidden_dim,
            hidden_size=dim,
            num_layers=1,
            batch_first=True,
        )
        self.user_tower = nn.Sequential(
            nn.Linear(dim * 3 + 6, config.user_hidden_1),
            nn.GELU(),
            nn.Dropout(config.dropout),
            nn.Linear(config.user_hidden_1, config.user_hidden_2),
            nn.GELU(),
            nn.Dropout(config.dropout),
            nn.Linear(config.user_hidden_2, dim),
        )
        self.candidate_embedding = nn.Embedding(n_items, dim)
        self.register_buffer(
            "item_features", torch.from_numpy(item_features), persistent=True
        )
        self.item_tower = nn.Sequential(
            nn.Linear(dim + n_item_features, config.item_hidden_1),
            nn.GELU(),
            nn.Dropout(config.dropout),
            nn.Linear(config.item_hidden_1, config.item_hidden_2),
            nn.GELU(),
            nn.Dropout(config.dropout),
            nn.Linear(config.item_hidden_2, dim),
        )
        nn.init.normal_(self.context_embedding.weight, std=0.02)
        nn.init.normal_(self.candidate_embedding.weight, std=0.02)
        with torch.no_grad():
            self.context_embedding.weight[n_items].zero_()

    def _mean_context_channel(self, items: torch.Tensor) -> torch.Tensor:
        mask = items.ne(self.n_items)
        vectors = self.context_embedding(items)
        return (vectors * mask.unsqueeze(-1)).sum(dim=1) / mask.sum(
            dim=1, keepdim=True
        ).clamp_min(1)

    def encode_items(self, items: torch.Tensor) -> torch.Tensor:
        inputs = torch.cat(
            [self.candidate_embedding(items), self.item_features[items]], dim=1
        )
        return self.item_tower(inputs)


def invalid_negative_mask(
    negatives: torch.Tensor,
    targets: torch.Tensor,
    context_items: torch.Tensor,
    liked_items: torch.Tensor,
) -> torch.Tensor:
    """Identify targets, known positives, active likes, and row duplicates."""
    invalid = negatives.eq(targets[:, None])
    invalid |= negatives[:, :, None].eq(context_items[:, None, :]).any(dim=2)
    invalid |= negatives[:, :, None].eq(liked_items[:, None, :]).any(dim=2)
    for column in range(1, negatives.shape[1]):
        invalid[:, column] |= negatives[:, column, None].eq(
            negatives[:, :column]
        ).any(dim=1)
    return invalid


def draw_filtered_mixed_negatives(
    targets: torch.Tensor,
    context_items: torch.Tensor,
    liked_items: torch.Tensor,
    n_items: int,
    uniform_count: int,
    inbatch_count: int,
    item_correction: torch.Tensor,
    generator: torch.Generator,
    device: torch.device,
) -> tuple[torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor]:
    """Draw uniform and unique-target in-batch negatives."""
    batch_size = len(targets)
    uniform = torch.randint(
        n_items,
        (batch_size, uniform_count),
        generator=generator,
        device="cpu",
    )
    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long, device="cpu")
    corrected_count = 0
    if inbatch_count:
        unique_targets = torch.unique(targets.detach().cpu())
        corrected_count = min(inbatch_count, max(len(unique_targets) - 1, 0))
        if corrected_count:
            priorities = torch.rand(
                (batch_size, len(unique_targets)), generator=generator
            )
            priorities.masked_fill_(
                unique_targets[None, :].eq(targets.detach().cpu()[:, None]),
                -1.0,
            )
            columns = torch.topk(priorities, k=corrected_count, dim=1).indices
            inbatch = unique_targets[columns]
        if corrected_count < inbatch_count:
            filler = torch.randint(
                n_items,
                (batch_size, inbatch_count - corrected_count),
                generator=generator,
                device="cpu",
            )
            inbatch = torch.cat([inbatch, filler], dim=1)

    negatives_cpu = torch.cat([uniform, inbatch], dim=1)
    correction_cpu = torch.ones_like(negatives_cpu, dtype=torch.float32)
    if corrected_count:
        correction_cpu[
            :, uniform_count : uniform_count + corrected_count
        ] = item_correction[inbatch[:, :corrected_count]]
    negatives = negatives_cpu.to(device)
    correction = correction_cpu.to(device)
    for _ in range(32):
        invalid = invalid_negative_mask(
            negatives, targets, context_items, liked_items
        )
        if not bool(invalid.any()):
            return negatives, correction
        replacements = torch.randint(
            n_items,
            (int(invalid.sum().detach().cpu()),),
            generator=generator,
            device="cpu",
        ).to(device)
        negatives[invalid] = replacements
        correction[invalid] = 1.0
    invalid = invalid_negative_mask(
        negatives, targets, context_items, liked_items
    )
    if bool(invalid.any()):
        raise RuntimeError("mixed negative resampling failed false-negative filter")
    return negatives, correction
18

read_file train_current_model.py

+08:14
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 650,
  "start_line": 530,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 530-650 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 651.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
        save_cache(cache, prepared, stage, config)
    return prepared, built_eligibility


def build_item_correction(
    prepared: SequenceData,
    config: Config,
    target_starts: np.ndarray,
    target_counts: np.ndarray,
) -> torch.Tensor:
    """Estimate in-batch propensities from the selected training targets."""
    counts = np.zeros(len(prepared.item_ids), dtype=np.float64)
    for user_row, count in enumerate(target_counts):
        if not count:
            continue
        offset = int(prepared.offsets[user_row])
        target_start = int(target_starts[user_row])
        counts += np.bincount(
            prepared.sequence_items[
                offset
                + target_start
                + 1 : offset
                + target_start
                + int(count)
                + 1
            ].astype(np.int64),
            minlength=len(prepared.item_ids),
        )
    total = float(counts.sum())
    probabilities = (counts + 1.0) / (total + len(counts))
    raw = np.power(
        (1.0 / len(counts)) / probabilities,
        config.inbatch_correction_power,
    )
    normalization = float(np.sum(counts * raw) / max(total, 1.0))
    correction = np.clip(
        raw / max(normalization, 1.0e-12),
        config.inbatch_correction_min,
        config.inbatch_correction_max,
    ).astype(np.float32)
    mean_on_targets = float(np.sum(counts * correction) / max(total, 1.0))
    log(
        f"inbatch correction: min={correction.min():.3f} "
        f"mean_on_targets={mean_on_targets:.3f} max={correction.max():.3f}"
    )
    return torch.from_numpy(correction)


def build_known_positive_filter(
    prepared: SequenceData, training_counts: np.ndarray
) -> np.ndarray:
    """Pack each user's complete public-training positive-item set."""
    width = (len(prepared.item_ids) + 7) // 8
    packed = np.zeros((len(prepared.user_ids), width), dtype=np.uint8)
    retained = 0
    for user_row, target_count in enumerate(training_counts):
        if not target_count:
            continue
        offset = int(prepared.offsets[user_row])
        # T adjacent targets consume sequence positions 0 through T.  The
        # chronological BCE suffix starts at T + 1 and is intentionally absent.
        items = np.unique(
            prepared.sequence_items[
                offset : offset + int(target_count) + 1
            ].astype(np.int64)
        )
        byte_columns = items >> 3
        bit_values = np.left_shift(
            np.uint8(1), (items & 7).astype(np.uint8)
        )
        np.bitwise_or.at(packed[user_row], byte_columns, bit_values)
        retained += len(items)
    log(
        f"full-history false-negative filter: users={len(prepared.user_ids):,} "
        f"unique_user_items={retained:,} bytes={packed.nbytes:,}"
    )
    return packed


def invalid_full_history_negatives(
    negatives: np.ndarray,
    targets: np.ndarray,
    user_rows: np.ndarray,
    known_positive_packed: np.ndarray,
    liked_items: np.ndarray,
) -> np.ndarray:
    """Return row-level invalid negatives using the complete training prefix."""
    byte_columns = negatives >> 3
    bit_columns = negatives & 7
    known = known_positive_packed[user_rows[:, None], byte_columns]
    invalid = ((known >> bit_columns) & 1).astype(bool)
    invalid |= negatives == targets[:, None]
    invalid |= (negatives[:, :, None] == liked_items[:, None, :]).any(axis=2)
    for column in range(1, negatives.shape[1]):
        invalid[:, column] |= (
            negatives[:, column, None] == negatives[:, :column]
        ).any(axis=1)
    return invalid


def draw_full_history_filtered_negatives(
    targets: torch.Tensor,
    user_rows: np.ndarray,
    liked_items: torch.Tensor,
    known_positive_packed: np.ndarray,
    n_items: int,
    config: Config,
    item_correction: torch.Tensor,
    generator: torch.Generator,
    device: torch.device,
) -> tuple[torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor]:
    """Draw mixed negatives and reject all known public-training positives."""
    targets_cpu = targets.detach().cpu().numpy().astype(np.int64, copy=False)
    liked_cpu = liked_items.detach().cpu().numpy().astype(np.int64, copy=False)
    batch_size = len(targets_cpu)
    uniform = torch.randint(
        n_items,
        (batch_size, config.uniform_negatives),
        generator=generator,
        device="cpu",
    )
19

read_file train_current_model.py

+08:25
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 651,
  "end_line": 900
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 651-900 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 901.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long)
    corrected_count = 0
    if config.inbatch_negatives:
        unique_targets = torch.unique(targets.detach().cpu())
        corrected_count = min(
            config.inbatch_negatives, max(len(unique_targets) - 1, 0)
        )
        if corrected_count:
            priorities = torch.rand(
                (batch_size, len(unique_targets)), generator=generator
            )
            priorities.masked_fill_(
                unique_targets[None, :].eq(
                    torch.from_numpy(targets_cpu)[:, None]
                ),
                -1.0,
            )
            columns = torch.topk(
                priorities, k=corrected_count, dim=1
            ).indices
            inbatch = unique_targets[columns]
        if corrected_count < config.inbatch_negatives:
            filler = torch.randint(
                n_items,
                (batch_size, config.inbatch_negatives - corrected_count),
                generator=generator,
                device="cpu",
            )
            inbatch = torch.cat([inbatch, filler], dim=1)

    negatives = torch.cat([uniform, inbatch], dim=1).numpy()
    correction = np.ones_like(negatives, dtype=np.float32)
    if corrected_count:
        correction[
            :, config.uniform_negatives : config.uniform_negatives + corrected_count
        ] = item_correction[inbatch[:, :corrected_count]].numpy()
    for _ in range(32):
        invalid = invalid_full_history_negatives(
            negatives,
            targets_cpu,
            user_rows,
            known_positive_packed,
            liked_cpu,
        )
        if not np.any(invalid):
            return (
                torch.from_numpy(negatives).to(device),
                torch.from_numpy(correction).to(device),
            )
        replacements = torch.randint(
            n_items,
            (int(invalid.sum()),),
            generator=generator,
            device="cpu",
        ).numpy()
        negatives[invalid] = replacements
        # Rejected in-batch items become ordinary uniform draws.
        correction[invalid] = 1.0
    invalid = invalid_full_history_negatives(
        negatives,
        targets_cpu,
        user_rows,
        known_positive_packed,
        liked_cpu,
    )
    if np.any(invalid):
        raise RuntimeError("full-history negative resampling failed")
    return (
        torch.from_numpy(negatives).to(device),
        torch.from_numpy(correction).to(device),
    )


def draw_training_negatives(
    positive_items: torch.Tensor,
    known_history: torch.Tensor,
    liked_items: torch.Tensor,
    user_rows: np.ndarray,
    known_positive_packed: np.ndarray | None,
    prepared: SequenceData,
    config: Config,
    item_correction: torch.Tensor,
    generator: torch.Generator,
    device: torch.device,
) -> tuple[torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor]:
    if config.negative_filter_scope == "full-training-history":
        if known_positive_packed is None:
            raise RuntimeError("full-history negative filter was not built")
        return draw_full_history_filtered_negatives(
            positive_items,
            user_rows,
            liked_items,
            known_positive_packed,
            len(prepared.item_ids),
            config,
            item_correction,
            generator,
            device,
        )
    return base.draw_filtered_mixed_negatives(
        positive_items,
        known_history,
        liked_items,
        len(prepared.item_ids),
        config.uniform_negatives,
        config.inbatch_negatives,
        item_correction,
        generator,
        device,
    )


def event_sequence(
    model: base.SequentialTwoTower,
    items: torch.Tensor,
    features: torch.Tensor,
    hidden: torch.Tensor,
) -> tuple[torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor]:
    inputs = torch.cat([model.context_embedding(items), features], dim=-1)
    projected = model.event_projection(inputs)
    return model.sequence_encoder(projected, hidden)


def pool_explicit_states(
    model: base.SequentialTwoTower,
    prepared: SequenceData,
    state_ids: np.ndarray,
    device: torch.device,
) -> tuple[torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor]:
    unique_states, inverse = np.unique(state_ids, return_inverse=True)
    liked_items = torch.from_numpy(
        prepared.liked_states[unique_states].astype(np.int64)
    ).to(device)
    disliked_items = torch.from_numpy(
        prepared.disliked_states[unique_states].astype(np.int64)
    ).to(device)
    liked_vectors = model._mean_context_channel(liked_items)
    disliked_vectors = model._mean_context_channel(disliked_items)
    inverse_rows = torch.from_numpy(inverse.astype(np.int64)).to(device)
    counts = prepared.state_counts[state_ids]
    return (
        liked_vectors[inverse_rows],
        disliked_vectors[inverse_rows],
        torch.from_numpy(counts.astype(np.float32)).to(device),
    )


def user_queries(
    model: base.SequentialTwoTower,
    sequence_vectors: torch.Tensor,
    liked_vectors: torch.Tensor,
    disliked_vectors: torch.Tensor,
    user_features: torch.Tensor,
) -> torch.Tensor:
    return model.user_tower(
        torch.cat(
            [sequence_vectors, liked_vectors, disliked_vectors, user_features],
            dim=1,
        )
    )


def candidate_vectors(
    model: base.SequentialTwoTower,
    positives: torch.Tensor,
    negatives: torch.Tensor,
) -> tuple[torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor]:
    all_items = torch.cat([positives, negatives.reshape(-1)])
    unique_items, inverse = torch.unique(all_items, return_inverse=True)
    encoded = model.encode_items(unique_items)
    positive_vectors = encoded[inverse[: len(positives)]]
    negative_vectors = encoded[inverse[len(positives) :]].reshape(
        len(positives), negatives.shape[1], -1
    )
    return positive_vectors, negative_vectors


def history_windows(
    sequence: np.ndarray,
    start: int,
    count: int,
    width: int,
    padding_item: int,
) -> np.ndarray:
    base_start = max(0, start - width + 1)
    segment = sequence[base_start : start + count]
    padded = np.concatenate(
        [np.full(width - 1, padding_item, dtype=np.uint16), segment]
    )
    windows = np.lib.stride_tricks.sliding_window_view(padded, width)
    offset = start - base_start
    return windows[offset : offset + count].copy()


def corrected_negative_loss(
    logits: torch.Tensor,
    correction: torch.Tensor,
    config: Config,
) -> torch.Tensor:
    raw = F.softplus(logits)
    total = config.uniform_negatives + config.inbatch_negatives
    result = torch.zeros(len(logits), device=logits.device)
    if config.uniform_negatives:
        result += config.uniform_negatives * raw[
            :, : config.uniform_negatives
        ].mean(dim=1)
    if config.inbatch_negatives:
        selected = slice(config.uniform_negatives, total)
        weights = correction[:, selected]
        result += config.inbatch_negatives * (
            (raw[:, selected] * weights).sum(dim=1)
            / weights.sum(dim=1).clamp_min(1.0e-6)
        )
    return result / total


def retained_target_window_starts(
    total_targets: np.ndarray,
    validation_counts: np.ndarray,
    training_counts: np.ndarray,
) -> np.ndarray:
    """Return the discarded prefix before the retained chronological suffix."""
    training_region_ends = total_targets - validation_counts
    window_starts = training_region_ends - training_counts
    if (
        np.any(window_starts < 0)
        or np.any(training_counts < 0)
        or np.any(validation_counts < 0)
    ):
        raise RuntimeError("chronological target partition produced negative counts")
    if not np.array_equal(
        window_starts + training_counts + validation_counts, total_targets
    ):
        raise RuntimeError("chronological target window is not a final contiguous suffix")
    return window_starts


def chronological_target_partition(
    prepared: SequenceData,
    validation_fraction: float,
    max_train_targets_per_user: int,
    max_validation_targets_per_user: int,
) -> TargetPartition:
    """Select a recent contiguous window with a final out-of-time BCE suffix."""
    totals = np.maximum(prepared.lengths - 1, 0).astype(np.int64)
    validation = np.floor(totals * validation_fraction).astype(np.int64)
    validation[(totals >= 2) & (validation == 0)] = 1
    if max_validation_targets_per_user:
        validation = np.minimum(validation, max_validation_targets_per_user)
20

read_file train_current_model.py

+08:27
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 1200,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 901
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 901-1200 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 1201.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    history_training = totals - validation
    training = history_training.copy()
    if max_train_targets_per_user:
        training = np.minimum(training, max_train_targets_per_user)
    window_starts = retained_target_window_starts(totals, validation, training)
    return TargetPartition(
        window_starts=window_starts,
        training_counts=training,
        validation_counts=validation,
        history_training_counts=history_training,
    )


def load_organic_like_outcomes(
    public: Path, stage: str, item_ids: np.ndarray
) -> dict[int, dict[int, np.ndarray]]:
    """Load mapped organic-like timestamps from public fitting history."""
    prefixes = ("train",) if stage == "validation" else ("train", "val")
    frames = [
        pd.read_parquet(
            public / "data" / f"{prefix}_likes.parquet",
            columns=["uid", "timestamp", "item_id", "is_organic"],
        )
        for prefix in prefixes
    ]
    likes = pd.concat(frames, ignore_index=True)
    likes = likes[likes.is_organic == 1].copy()
    mapped = pd.Index(item_ids).get_indexer(
        likes.item_id.to_numpy(dtype=np.int64)
    )
    likes = likes.loc[mapped >= 0, ["uid", "timestamp"]].copy()
    likes["item"] = mapped[mapped >= 0].astype(np.int32, copy=False)
    likes = likes.sort_values(["uid", "item", "timestamp"], kind="stable")
    nested: dict[int, dict[int, list[int]]] = {}
    for raw_uid, raw_timestamp, raw_item in likes.itertuples(
        index=False, name=None
    ):
        nested.setdefault(int(raw_uid), {}).setdefault(int(raw_item), []).append(
            int(raw_timestamp)
        )
    result = {
        uid: {
            item: np.asarray(timestamps, dtype=np.int64)
            for item, timestamps in items.items()
        }
        for uid, items in nested.items()
    }
    log(
        f"loaded organic-like outcomes: rows={len(likes):,} "
        f"users={len(result):,}"
    )
    return result


def build_target_weights(
    public: Path,
    stage: str,
    prepared: SequenceData,
    training_counts: np.ndarray,
    config: Config,
) -> np.ndarray:
    """Build nonzero per-token weights without dropping adjacent targets."""
    if config.target_weighting == "uniform":
        weights = np.ones(len(prepared.sequence_items), dtype=np.float32)
    else:
        weights = np.full(
            len(prepared.sequence_items),
            config.ordinary_target_weight,
            dtype=np.float32,
        )
        organic_strong = (
            (prepared.event_features[:, 0] > 0.5)
            & (prepared.event_features[:, 1] >= 0.8)
        )
        weights[organic_strong] = config.organic_strong_target_weight
        if config.target_weighting == "discovery-graded":
            like_outcomes = load_organic_like_outcomes(
                public, stage, prepared.item_ids
            )
            history_end = (
                base.TRAIN_END if stage == "validation" else base.VALIDATION_END
            )
            horizon = config.discovery_horizon_days * base.DAY
            grade_three = 0
            for user_row, uid in enumerate(prepared.user_ids):
                start = int(prepared.offsets[user_row])
                end = int(prepared.offsets[user_row + 1])
                if end - start < 2:
                    continue
                last_training_target = start + int(training_counts[user_row])
                first_validation_target = last_training_target + 1
                split_timestamp = (
                    int(prepared.sequence_timestamps[first_validation_target])
                    if first_validation_target < end
                    else history_end
                )
                user_likes = like_outcomes.get(int(uid), {})
                seen = {int(prepared.sequence_items[start])}
                for position in range(start + 1, end):
                    item = int(prepared.sequence_items[position])
                    novel = item not in seen
                    seen.add(item)
                    if not novel:
                        # Repeats remain training examples, but they cannot be
                        # eligible discovery outcomes at the corresponding
                        # cutoff and therefore keep only the ordinary weight.
                        weights[position] = config.ordinary_target_weight
                        continue
                    timestamps = user_likes.get(item)
                    if timestamps is None:
                        continue
                    timestamp = int(prepared.sequence_timestamps[position])
                    upper = min(
                        timestamp + horizon,
                        split_timestamp
                        if position <= last_training_target
                        else history_end,
                    )
                    outcome = int(np.searchsorted(timestamps, timestamp, side="left"))
                    if outcome < len(timestamps) and int(timestamps[outcome]) < upper:
                        weights[position] = config.organic_like_target_weight
                        grade_three += 1
            log(
                f"grade-3 first-encounter targets={grade_three:,} "
                f"horizon_days={config.discovery_horizon_days}"
            )
    log(
        f"target weighting={config.target_weighting} "
        f"min={weights.min():.3f} mean={weights.mean():.3f} "
        f"max={weights.max():.3f}"
    )
    return weights


def build_dense_block(
    prepared: SequenceData,
    target_weights: np.ndarray,
    users: np.ndarray,
    window_starts: np.ndarray,
    process_counts: np.ndarray,
    score_starts: np.ndarray,
    start: int,
    steps: int,
    config: Config,
) -> tuple[np.ndarray, ...]:
    """Build one causal sequence block and mark the target rows to score."""
    batch_size = len(users)
    padding_item = len(prepared.item_ids)
    input_items = np.full((batch_size, steps), padding_item, dtype=np.uint16)
    event_features = np.zeros((batch_size, steps, 3), dtype=np.float16)
    activity_features = np.zeros((batch_size, steps, 4), dtype=np.float16)
    state_ids = np.zeros((batch_size, steps), dtype=np.uint32)
    targets = np.zeros((batch_size, steps), dtype=np.uint16)
    weights = np.ones((batch_size, steps), dtype=np.float32)
    scored = np.zeros((batch_size, steps), dtype=bool)
    histories = np.full(
        (batch_size, steps, config.bptt_steps),
        padding_item,
        dtype=np.uint16,
    )
    processed = np.zeros(batch_size, dtype=np.int32)

    lengths = prepared.lengths
    for row, user_row in enumerate(users):
        count = min(steps, max(int(process_counts[row]) - start, 0))
        if not count:
            continue
        offset = int(prepared.offsets[user_row])
        window_start = int(window_starts[row])
        absolute_start = window_start + start
        positions = slice(
            offset + absolute_start,
            offset + absolute_start + count,
        )
        target_positions = slice(
            offset + absolute_start + 1,
            offset + absolute_start + count + 1,
        )
        input_items[row, :count] = prepared.sequence_items[positions]
        event_features[row, :count] = prepared.event_features[positions]
        activity_features[row, :count] = prepared.activity_features[positions]
        state_ids[row, :count] = prepared.state_ids[positions]
        targets[row, :count] = prepared.sequence_items[target_positions]
        weights[row, :count] = target_weights[target_positions]
        score_from = min(count, max(int(score_starts[row]) - start, 0))
        scored[row, score_from:count] = True
        processed[row] = count
        user_sequence = prepared.sequence_items[
            offset : offset + int(lengths[user_row])
        ]
        histories[row, :count] = history_windows(
            user_sequence,
            absolute_start,
            count,
            config.bptt_steps,
            padding_item,
        )
    return (
        input_items,
        event_features,
        activity_features,
        state_ids,
        targets,
        scored,
        histories,
        processed,
        weights,
    )


def score_target_microbatches(
    model: base.SequentialTwoTower,
    prepared: SequenceData,
    config: Config,
    sequence_vectors: torch.Tensor,
    flat_states: np.ndarray,
    flat_activity: np.ndarray,
    positive_items: torch.Tensor,
    negatives: torch.Tensor,
    negative_weights: torch.Tensor,
    sample_weights: np.ndarray,
    device: torch.device,
    backward: bool,
) -> tuple[dict[str, float], torch.Tensor | None]:
    """Compute one logical block's exact BCE in bounded-memory slices."""
    target_count = len(positive_items)
    total_weight = float(sample_weights.sum())
    if total_weight <= 0:
        raise RuntimeError("target block has no positive sample weight")
    sequence_gradient = torch.zeros_like(sequence_vectors) if backward else None
    statistics = {
        "loss_sum": 0.0,
        "positive_sum": 0.0,
        "negative_sum": 0.0,
        "pair_correct": 0.0,
        "weight_sum": 0.0,
    }
    for begin in range(0, target_count, config.loss_microbatch_size):
        end = min(begin + config.loss_microbatch_size, target_count)
        selected_states = flat_states[begin:end]
        if backward:
            sequence_input = (
                sequence_vectors[begin:end].detach().requires_grad_(True)
            )
        else:
            sequence_input = sequence_vectors[begin:end]
        liked_vectors, disliked_vectors, _ = pool_explicit_states(
            model, prepared, selected_states, device
        )
        counts = prepared.state_counts[selected_states]
        numeric = np.zeros((end - begin, 6), dtype=np.float32)
        numeric[:, :4] = flat_activity[begin:end]
        numeric[:, 4] = np.log1p(counts[:, 0]) / 6.0
        numeric[:, 5] = np.log1p(counts[:, 1]) / 4.0
        query_vectors = user_queries(
            model,
            sequence_input,
            liked_vectors,
            disliked_vectors,
            torch.from_numpy(numeric).to(device),
        )
        positive_vectors, negative_vectors = candidate_vectors(
            model,
            positive_items[begin:end],
            negatives[begin:end],
        )
        positive_logits = (query_vectors * positive_vectors).sum(dim=1)
        negative_logits = torch.einsum(
            "bd,bkd->bk", query_vectors, negative_vectors
        )
        positive_loss = F.softplus(-positive_logits)
        negative_loss = corrected_negative_loss(
            negative_logits, negative_weights[begin:end], config
        )
        selected_weights = torch.from_numpy(
            sample_weights[begin:end].astype(np.float32, copy=False)
        ).to(device)
        loss_sum = (
            selected_weights * (positive_loss + negative_loss) / 2.0
        ).sum()
        if not bool(torch.isfinite(loss_sum)):
            raise RuntimeError("dense next-item training produced non-finite loss")
        if backward:
            (loss_sum / total_weight).backward()
            if sequence_input.grad is None:
                raise RuntimeError("sequence microbatch did not produce a gradient")
            sequence_gradient[begin:end] = sequence_input.grad
        statistics["loss_sum"] += float(loss_sum.detach().cpu())
        statistics["positive_sum"] += float(positive_logits.detach().sum().cpu())
        statistics["negative_sum"] += float(negative_logits.detach().sum().cpu())
        statistics["pair_correct"] += float(
            (positive_logits.detach()[:, None] > negative_logits.detach()).sum().cpu()
        )
        statistics["weight_sum"] += float(selected_weights.sum().detach().cpu())
    return statistics, sequence_gradient


def release_accelerator_cache(device: torch.device) -> None:
    if device.type == "mps":
        torch.mps.empty_cache()
21

read_file train_current_model.py

+08:31
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 1550,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 1201
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1201-1550 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 1551.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---


def run_training_epoch(
    model: base.SequentialTwoTower,
    optimizer: torch.optim.Optimizer,
    prepared: SequenceData,
    config: Config,
    target_weights: np.ndarray,
    window_starts: np.ndarray,
    target_counts: np.ndarray,
    item_correction: torch.Tensor,
    known_positive_packed: np.ndarray | None,
    generator: torch.Generator,
    device: torch.device,
    epoch: int,
) -> dict[str, float]:
    model.train()
    train_users = np.flatnonzero(target_counts > 0)
    sorted_users = train_users[
        np.argsort(target_counts[train_users], kind="stable")
    ]
    groups = [
        sorted_users[start : start + config.user_batch_size]
        for start in range(0, len(sorted_users), config.user_batch_size)
    ]
    group_order = torch.randperm(len(groups), generator=generator).numpy()
    negative_count = config.uniform_negatives + config.inbatch_negatives
    total_loss = 0.0
    total_targets = 0
    total_weight = 0.0
    total_positive = 0.0
    total_negative = 0.0
    total_pair_correct = 0.0
    batches = 0
    started = time.monotonic()

    for group_number in group_order:
        users = groups[int(group_number)]
        group_counts = target_counts[users]
        hidden = torch.zeros(
            1, len(users), config.embedding_dim, device=device
        )
        max_targets = int(group_counts.max())
        for start in range(0, max_targets, config.bptt_steps):
            steps = min(config.bptt_steps, max_targets - start)
            block = build_dense_block(
                prepared,
                target_weights,
                users,
                window_starts[users],
                group_counts,
                np.zeros(len(users), dtype=np.int64),
                start,
                steps,
                config,
            )
            sequence_outputs, _ = event_sequence(
                model,
                torch.from_numpy(block[0].astype(np.int64)).to(device),
                torch.from_numpy(block[1].astype(np.float32)).to(device),
                hidden,
            )
            hidden = torch.stack(
                [
                    sequence_outputs[row, count - 1]
                    if count
                    else hidden[0, row]
                    for row, count in enumerate(block[7])
                ]
            ).unsqueeze(0).detach()
            flat_scored = block[5].reshape(-1)
            if not np.any(flat_scored):
                continue
            mask = torch.from_numpy(flat_scored).to(device)
            sequence_vectors = sequence_outputs.reshape(
                -1, config.embedding_dim
            )[mask]
            flat_states = block[3].reshape(-1)[flat_scored]
            positive_items = torch.from_numpy(
                block[4].reshape(-1)[flat_scored].astype(np.int64)
            ).to(device)
            known_history = torch.from_numpy(
                block[6].reshape(-1, config.bptt_steps)[flat_scored].astype(
                    np.int64
                )
            ).to(device)
            liked_items = torch.from_numpy(
                prepared.liked_states[flat_states].astype(np.int64)
            ).to(device)
            flat_user_rows = np.broadcast_to(
                users[:, None], block[5].shape
            ).reshape(-1)[flat_scored]
            negatives, negative_weights = draw_training_negatives(
                positive_items,
                known_history,
                liked_items,
                flat_user_rows,
                known_positive_packed,
                prepared,
                config,
                item_correction,
                generator,
                device,
            )
            optimizer.zero_grad(set_to_none=True)
            statistics, sequence_gradient = score_target_microbatches(
                model,
                prepared,
                config,
                sequence_vectors,
                flat_states,
                block[2].reshape(-1, 4)[flat_scored].astype(np.float32),
                positive_items,
                negatives,
                negative_weights,
                block[8].reshape(-1)[flat_scored],
                device,
                backward=True,
            )
            if sequence_gradient is None:
                raise RuntimeError("training block omitted its sequence gradient")
            sequence_vectors.backward(sequence_gradient)
            nn.utils.clip_grad_norm_(model.parameters(), config.gradient_clip)
            optimizer.step()

            count = len(positive_items)
            total_loss += statistics["loss_sum"]
            total_targets += count
            total_weight += statistics["weight_sum"]
            total_positive += statistics["positive_sum"]
            total_negative += statistics["negative_sum"]
            total_pair_correct += statistics["pair_correct"]
            batches += 1
            if batches % 25 == 0:
                release_accelerator_cache(device)
            if batches % 250 == 0:
                batch_bce = statistics["loss_sum"] / max(
                    statistics["weight_sum"], 1.0e-12
                )
                running_bce = total_loss / max(total_weight, 1.0e-12)
                log(
                    f"epoch={epoch}/{config.epochs} batches={batches:,} "
                    f"targets={total_targets:,} "
                    f"batch_bce={batch_bce:.6f} "
                    f"running_bce={running_bce:.6f} "
                    f"elapsed={time.monotonic() - started:.1f}s"
                )

    return {
        "epoch": float(epoch),
        "loss": total_loss / max(total_weight, 1.0e-12),
        "positive_logit": total_positive / max(total_targets, 1),
        "negative_logit": total_negative / max(total_targets * negative_count, 1),
        "pair_accuracy": total_pair_correct
        / max(total_targets * negative_count, 1),
        "targets": float(total_targets),
        "target_weight_sum": total_weight,
        "batches": float(batches),
        "seconds": time.monotonic() - started,
    }


@torch.no_grad()
def evaluate_validation_bce(
    model: base.SequentialTwoTower,
    prepared: SequenceData,
    config: Config,
    target_weights: np.ndarray,
    window_starts: np.ndarray,
    training_counts: np.ndarray,
    validation_counts: np.ndarray,
    item_correction: torch.Tensor,
    known_positive_packed: np.ndarray | None,
    device: torch.device,
) -> dict[str, float]:
    """Measure deterministic BCE on each user's chronological target suffix."""
    model.eval()
    totals = training_counts + validation_counts
    users_with_validation = np.flatnonzero(validation_counts > 0)
    ordered = users_with_validation[
        np.argsort(totals[users_with_validation], kind="stable")
    ]
    groups = [
        ordered[start : start + config.user_batch_size]
        for start in range(0, len(ordered), config.user_batch_size)
    ]
    generator = torch.Generator(device="cpu").manual_seed(config.seed + 20_000)
    total_loss = 0.0
    total_targets = 0
    total_weight = 0.0
    started = time.monotonic()

    for group_number, users in enumerate(groups, start=1):
        group_totals = totals[users]
        group_starts = training_counts[users]
        hidden = torch.zeros(
            1, len(users), config.embedding_dim, device=device
        )
        max_targets = int(group_totals.max())
        for start in range(0, max_targets, config.bptt_steps):
            steps = min(config.bptt_steps, max_targets - start)
            block = build_dense_block(
                prepared,
                target_weights,
                users,
                window_starts[users],
                group_totals,
                group_starts,
                start,
                steps,
                config,
            )
            sequence_outputs, _ = event_sequence(
                model,
                torch.from_numpy(block[0].astype(np.int64)).to(device),
                torch.from_numpy(block[1].astype(np.float32)).to(device),
                hidden,
            )
            hidden = torch.stack(
                [
                    sequence_outputs[row, count - 1]
                    if count
                    else hidden[0, row]
                    for row, count in enumerate(block[7])
                ]
            ).unsqueeze(0)
            flat_scored = block[5].reshape(-1)
            if not np.any(flat_scored):
                continue
            mask = torch.from_numpy(flat_scored).to(device)
            sequence_vectors = sequence_outputs.reshape(
                -1, config.embedding_dim
            )[mask]
            flat_states = block[3].reshape(-1)[flat_scored]
            positive_items = torch.from_numpy(
                block[4].reshape(-1)[flat_scored].astype(np.int64)
            ).to(device)
            known_history = torch.from_numpy(
                block[6].reshape(-1, config.bptt_steps)[flat_scored].astype(
                    np.int64
                )
            ).to(device)
            liked_items = torch.from_numpy(
                prepared.liked_states[flat_states].astype(np.int64)
            ).to(device)
            flat_user_rows = np.broadcast_to(
                users[:, None], block[5].shape
            ).reshape(-1)[flat_scored]
            negatives, negative_weights = draw_training_negatives(
                positive_items,
                known_history,
                liked_items,
                flat_user_rows,
                known_positive_packed,
                prepared,
                config,
                item_correction,
                generator,
                device,
            )
            statistics, _ = score_target_microbatches(
                model,
                prepared,
                config,
                sequence_vectors,
                flat_states,
                block[2].reshape(-1, 4)[flat_scored].astype(np.float32),
                positive_items,
                negatives,
                negative_weights,
                block[8].reshape(-1)[flat_scored],
                device,
                backward=False,
            )
            total_loss += statistics["loss_sum"]
            total_targets += len(positive_items)
            total_weight += statistics["weight_sum"]
        if group_number % 25 == 0:
            release_accelerator_cache(device)
    return {
        "validation_loss": total_loss / max(total_weight, 1.0e-12),
        "validation_targets": float(total_targets),
        "validation_target_weight_sum": total_weight,
        "validation_seconds": time.monotonic() - started,
    }


def snapshot_model(model: nn.Module) -> dict[str, torch.Tensor]:
    return {
        name: value.detach().cpu().clone()
        for name, value in model.state_dict().items()
    }


def save_epoch_checkpoint(
    checkpoint_dir: Path,
    epoch: int,
    model_state: dict[str, torch.Tensor],
    config: Config,
    diagnostics: dict[str, float],
    optimizer: torch.optim.Optimizer,
    generator: torch.Generator,
) -> Path:
    checkpoint_dir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
    path = checkpoint_dir / f"epoch-{epoch:02d}.pt"
    torch.save(
        {
            "epoch": epoch,
            "config": asdict(config),
            "diagnostics": diagnostics,
            "model_state": model_state,
            "optimizer_state": optimizer.state_dict(),
            "generator_state": generator.get_state(),
        },
        path,
    )
    log(f"saved epoch checkpoint: {path}")
    return path


def train_model(
    public: Path,
    stage: str,
    prepared: SequenceData,
    config: Config,
    device: torch.device,
    checkpoint_dir: Path | None,
    resume_checkpoint: Path | None,
) -> tuple[base.SequentialTwoTower, list[dict[str, float]]]:
    partition = chronological_target_partition(
        prepared,
        config.validation_fraction,
        config.max_train_targets_per_user,
        config.max_validation_targets_per_user,
    )
    training_counts = partition.training_counts
    validation_counts = partition.validation_counts
    log(
        f"chronological BCE window: train={int(training_counts.sum()):,} "
        f"validation={int(validation_counts.sum()):,} "
        f"selected={partition.selected_count:,} "
        f"discarded_old_targets={int(partition.window_starts.sum()):,} "
        f"all={prepared.target_count:,}"
    )
    model = base.SequentialTwoTower(prepared.item_features, model_config(config)).to(
        device
    )
    optimizer = torch.optim.AdamW(
        model.parameters(), lr=config.learning_rate, weight_decay=config.weight_decay
    )
22

read_file train_current_model.py

+08:36
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 1930,
  "start_line": 1551,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1551-1930 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 1931.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    generator = torch.Generator(device="cpu").manual_seed(config.seed + 10_000)
    item_correction = build_item_correction(
        prepared,
        config,
        partition.window_starts,
        training_counts,
    )
    target_weights = build_target_weights(
        public,
        stage,
        prepared,
        partition.history_training_counts,
        config,
    )
    known_positive_packed = (
        build_known_positive_filter(prepared, partition.history_training_counts)
        if config.negative_filter_scope == "full-training-history"
        else None
    )
    history: list[dict[str, float]] = []
    best_loss = float("inf")
    best_epoch = 0
    best_state: dict[str, torch.Tensor] | None = None
    epochs_without_improvement = 0
    start_epoch = 0

    if resume_checkpoint is not None:
        payload = torch.load(
            resume_checkpoint, map_location=device, weights_only=False
        )
        stored_config = payload.get("config", {})
        architecture_fields = (
            "bptt_steps",
            "embedding_dim",
            "hidden_dim",
            "user_hidden_1",
            "user_hidden_2",
            "item_hidden_1",
            "item_hidden_2",
        )
        mismatches = {
            name: (stored_config.get(name), getattr(config, name))
            for name in architecture_fields
            if stored_config.get(name) != getattr(config, name)
        }
        if mismatches:
            raise RuntimeError(
                f"resume checkpoint architecture differs: {mismatches}"
            )
        stored_filter_scope = stored_config.get(
            "negative_filter_scope", "last-100"
        )
        stored_target_weighting = stored_config.get(
            "target_weighting", "uniform"
        )
        stored_weight_values = (
            stored_config.get("ordinary_target_weight", 1.0),
            stored_config.get("organic_strong_target_weight", 1.0),
            stored_config.get("organic_like_target_weight", 3.0),
            stored_config.get("discovery_horizon_days", 7),
        )
        current_weight_values = (
            config.ordinary_target_weight,
            config.organic_strong_target_weight,
            config.organic_like_target_weight,
            config.discovery_horizon_days,
        )
        stored_window_values = (
            stored_config.get("validation_fraction", 0.10),
            stored_config.get("max_train_targets_per_user", 0),
            stored_config.get("max_validation_targets_per_user", 0),
        )
        current_window_values = (
            config.validation_fraction,
            config.max_train_targets_per_user,
            config.max_validation_targets_per_user,
        )
        objective_changed = (
            stored_filter_scope != config.negative_filter_scope
            or stored_target_weighting != config.target_weighting
            or stored_weight_values != current_weight_values
            or stored_window_values != current_window_values
        )
        model.load_state_dict(payload["model_state"])
        if "optimizer_state" in payload and not objective_changed:
            optimizer.load_state_dict(payload["optimizer_state"])
            for group in optimizer.param_groups:
                group["lr"] = config.learning_rate
                group["weight_decay"] = config.weight_decay
            log(f"restored optimizer state from {resume_checkpoint}")
        else:
            log(
                f"using a fresh AdamW optimizer after loading {resume_checkpoint}"
            )
        if "generator_state" in payload and not objective_changed:
            generator.set_state(payload["generator_state"])
        start_epoch = int(payload["epoch"])
        if start_epoch >= config.epochs:
            raise RuntimeError(
                f"resume epoch {start_epoch} must be below --epochs {config.epochs}"
            )
        prior = {
            str(name): float(value)
            for name, value in payload.get("diagnostics", {}).items()
        }
        if objective_changed:
            prior.pop("validation_loss", None)
            log(
                "BCE objective changed: filter "
                f"{stored_filter_scope}->{config.negative_filter_scope}, "
                "target weighting "
                f"{stored_target_weighting}->{config.target_weighting}, "
                f"target window {stored_window_values}->{current_window_values}; "
                "recomputing the resume checkpoint's validation BCE"
            )
        if "validation_loss" not in prior:
            prior.update(
                evaluate_validation_bce(
                    model,
                    prepared,
                    config,
                    target_weights,
                    partition.window_starts,
                    training_counts,
                    validation_counts,
                    item_correction,
                    known_positive_packed,
                    device,
                )
            )
        history.append(prior)
        best_loss = float(prior["validation_loss"])
        best_epoch = start_epoch
        best_state = snapshot_model(model)
        log(
            f"resumed validation-BCE training: epoch={start_epoch} "
            f"loss={best_loss:.6f}"
        )

    for epoch in range(start_epoch + 1, config.epochs + 1):
        diagnostics = run_training_epoch(
            model,
            optimizer,
            prepared,
            config,
            target_weights,
            partition.window_starts,
            training_counts,
            item_correction,
            known_positive_packed,
            generator,
            device,
            epoch,
        )
        validation = evaluate_validation_bce(
            model,
            prepared,
            config,
            target_weights,
            partition.window_starts,
            training_counts,
            validation_counts,
            item_correction,
            known_positive_packed,
            device,
        )
        diagnostics.update(validation)
        history.append(diagnostics)
        current_state = snapshot_model(model)
        if checkpoint_dir is not None:
            save_epoch_checkpoint(
                checkpoint_dir,
                epoch,
                current_state,
                config,
                diagnostics,
                optimizer,
                generator,
            )
        improved = (
            diagnostics["validation_loss"]
            < best_loss - config.early_stopping_min_delta
        )
        if improved:
            best_loss = diagnostics["validation_loss"]
            best_epoch = epoch
            best_state = current_state
            epochs_without_improvement = 0
            if checkpoint_dir is not None:
                torch.save(
                    {
                        "epoch": epoch,
                        "config": asdict(config),
                        "diagnostics": diagnostics,
                        "model_state": current_state,
                        "optimizer_state": optimizer.state_dict(),
                        "generator_state": generator.get_state(),
                    },
                    checkpoint_dir / "best.pt",
                )
        else:
            epochs_without_improvement += 1
        log(
            f"epoch={epoch}/{config.epochs} train_loss={diagnostics['loss']:.5f} "
            f"validation_loss={diagnostics['validation_loss']:.5f} "
            f"pair_accuracy={diagnostics['pair_accuracy']:.3f} "
            f"train_targets={int(diagnostics['targets']):,} "
            f"validation_targets={int(diagnostics['validation_targets']):,} "
            f"train_seconds={diagnostics['seconds']:.1f} "
            f"validation_seconds={diagnostics['validation_seconds']:.1f}"
        )
        release_accelerator_cache(device)
        if epochs_without_improvement >= config.early_stopping_patience:
            log(
                f"early stopping after epoch={epoch}; "
                f"best_epoch={best_epoch} best_validation_loss={best_loss:.6f}"
            )
            break

    if best_state is None:
        raise RuntimeError("training did not produce a valid checkpoint")
    model.load_state_dict(best_state)
    model.to(device).eval()
    log(
        f"restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch={best_epoch} "
        f"loss={best_loss:.6f}"
    )
    return model, history


@torch.inference_mode()
def inference_queries(
    model: base.SequentialTwoTower,
    prepared: SequenceData,
    config: Config,
    device: torch.device,
) -> torch.Tensor:
    sequence_rows = prepared.inference_user_rows
    lengths = np.where(
        sequence_rows >= 0, prepared.lengths[np.maximum(sequence_rows, 0)], 0
    )
    ordered = np.argsort(lengths, kind="stable")
    result = torch.zeros(
        len(sequence_rows), config.embedding_dim, dtype=torch.float32
    )
    for group_start in range(0, len(ordered), config.user_batch_size):
        output_rows = ordered[group_start : group_start + config.user_batch_size]
        rows = sequence_rows[output_rows]
        group_lengths = lengths[output_rows]
        hidden = torch.zeros(
            1, len(output_rows), config.embedding_dim, device=device
        )
        for start in range(0, int(group_lengths.max(initial=0)), config.bptt_steps):
            steps = min(
                config.bptt_steps,
                int(group_lengths.max(initial=0)) - start,
            )
            items = np.full(
                (len(output_rows), steps),
                len(prepared.item_ids),
                dtype=np.uint16,
            )
            features = np.zeros((len(output_rows), steps, 3), dtype=np.float16)
            counts = np.zeros(len(output_rows), dtype=np.int32)
            for local_row, sequence_row in enumerate(rows):
                if sequence_row < 0:
                    continue
                count = min(steps, max(int(group_lengths[local_row]) - start, 0))
                if not count:
                    continue
                offset = int(prepared.offsets[sequence_row])
                selected = slice(offset + start, offset + start + count)
                items[local_row, :count] = prepared.sequence_items[selected]
                features[local_row, :count] = prepared.event_features[selected]
                counts[local_row] = count
            outputs, _ = event_sequence(
                model,
                torch.from_numpy(items.astype(np.int64)).to(device),
                torch.from_numpy(features.astype(np.float32)).to(device),
                hidden,
            )
            next_rows: list[torch.Tensor] = []
            for local_row, count in enumerate(counts):
                next_rows.append(
                    outputs[local_row, count - 1]
                    if count
                    else hidden[0, local_row]
                )
            hidden = torch.stack(next_rows).unsqueeze(0)

        liked_items = torch.from_numpy(
            prepared.inference_liked_items[output_rows].astype(np.int64)
        ).to(device)
        disliked_items = torch.from_numpy(
            prepared.inference_disliked_items[output_rows].astype(np.int64)
        ).to(device)
        queries = user_queries(
            model,
            hidden.squeeze(0),
            model._mean_context_channel(liked_items),
            model._mean_context_channel(disliked_items),
            torch.from_numpy(
                prepared.inference_user_features[output_rows].astype(np.float32)
            ).to(device),
        )
        result[torch.from_numpy(output_rows.astype(np.int64))] = queries.cpu()
    return result


@torch.inference_mode()
def rank_candidates(
    model: base.SequentialTwoTower,
    prepared: SequenceData,
    eligibility: CandidateSet,
    config: Config,
    device: torch.device,
    ranking_batch_size: int,
) -> tuple[pd.DataFrame, dict[str, float]]:
    model.eval()
    queries = inference_queries(model, prepared, config, device)
    item_parts: list[torch.Tensor] = []
    for start in range(0, len(prepared.item_ids), 2_048):
        rows = torch.arange(
            start,
            min(start + 2_048, len(prepared.item_ids)),
            dtype=torch.long,
            device=device,
        )
        item_parts.append(model.encode_items(rows).cpu())
    items = torch.cat(item_parts)
    rows: list[tuple[int, int, int]] = []
    for start in range(0, len(eligibility.uids), ranking_batch_size):
        end = min(start + ranking_batch_size, len(eligibility.uids))
        scores = queries[start:end] @ items.T
        eligible = np.unpackbits(
            eligibility.packed[start:end],
            axis=1,
            count=len(prepared.item_ids),
            bitorder="little",
        ).astype(bool, copy=False)
        scores.masked_fill_(~torch.from_numpy(eligible), -torch.inf)
        selected = torch.topk(scores, k=base.TOP_N, dim=1).indices.numpy()
        for local_row, columns in enumerate(selected):
            uid = int(eligibility.uids[start + local_row])
            rows.extend(
                (uid, int(prepared.item_ids[column]), rank)
                for rank, column in enumerate(columns, start=1)
            )
        if end == len(eligibility.uids) or end % 1_024 == 0:
            log(f"ranked users={end:,}/{len(eligibility.uids):,}")
    query_norm = torch.linalg.vector_norm(queries, dim=1).numpy()
    item_norm = torch.linalg.vector_norm(items, dim=1).numpy()
    diagnostics = {
        "query_norm_mean": float(query_norm.mean()),
        "query_norm_std": float(query_norm.std()),
        "item_norm_mean": float(item_norm.mean()),
        "item_norm_std": float(item_norm.std()),
    }
    return pd.DataFrame(rows, columns=["uid", "item_id", "rank"]), diagnostics


def write_ranking(frame: pd.DataFrame, output: Path) -> None:
    output.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
    if output.suffix == ".parquet":
        frame.to_parquet(output, index=False, compression="zstd")
    elif output.suffix == ".csv":
        frame.to_csv(output, index=False)
    else:
        raise ValueError("--output must end in .parquet or .csv")


def main() -> int:
    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description=__doc__)
    parser.add_argument(
        "--stage", choices=("validation", "submission"), default="validation"
    )
    parser.add_argument("--output", type=Path, required=True)
    parser.add_argument("--public-dir", type=Path, required=True)
    parser.add_argument("--prepared-cache", type=Path)
    parser.add_argument("--device", choices=("cpu", "mps"), default="cpu")
23

read_file train_current_model.py

+08:38
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "start_line": 1,
  "end_line": 100,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1-100 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 101.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""Train the Yambda windowed two-tower baseline.

Every catalog listen with at least 50 percent completion is a sequence token.
Within each selected chronological window, every adjacent target contributes a
loss.  The fast default retains each user's most recent 128 training targets and
16 held-out validation targets; passing zero for either cap restores the
uncapped behavior for that side of the split.  A 100-step truncated-BPTT block
computes all of its timestep losses and carries the detached GRU hidden state
into the next block.

The model is a pure two-tower retriever: no user-ID embedding, no output
normalization, raw dot-product retrieval, sample-weighted binary cross entropy,
and 24 uniform plus eight propensity-corrected unique in-batch negatives. Every
selected adjacent target retains a nonzero weight. Only files under the supplied
public directory are read.
"""
from __future__ import annotations

import argparse
import json
import random
import sys
import time
from dataclasses import asdict, dataclass
from pathlib import Path

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import torch
from torch import nn
from torch.nn import functional as F

import two_tower_model as base


CACHE_VERSION = 2


@dataclass(frozen=True)
class Config:
    bptt_steps: int = 100
    user_batch_size: int = 64
    embedding_dim: int = 192
    hidden_dim: int = 192
    user_hidden_1: int = 512
    user_hidden_2: int = 256
    item_hidden_1: int = 512
    item_hidden_2: int = 256
    dropout: float = 0.05
    epochs: int = 1
    learning_rate: float = 1.0e-3
    weight_decay: float = 1.0e-5
    gradient_clip: float = 2.0
    loss_microbatch_size: int = 65_536
    uniform_negatives: int = 24
    inbatch_negatives: int = 8
    inbatch_correction_power: float = 0.5
    inbatch_correction_min: float = 0.25
    inbatch_correction_max: float = 4.0
    negative_filter_scope: str = "full-training-history"
    target_weighting: str = "organic-strong"
    ordinary_target_weight: float = 0.25
    organic_strong_target_weight: float = 1.0
    organic_like_target_weight: float = 3.0
    discovery_horizon_days: int = 7
    validation_fraction: float = 0.10
    max_train_targets_per_user: int = 128
    max_validation_targets_per_user: int = 16
    early_stopping_patience: int = 1
    early_stopping_min_delta: float = 1.0e-4
    seed: int = 29


@dataclass(frozen=True)
class CandidateSet:
    uids: np.ndarray
    item_ids: np.ndarray
    packed: np.ndarray

    @classmethod
    def read(cls, path: Path) -> "CandidateSet":
        with np.load(path, allow_pickle=False) as artifact:
            result = cls(
                uids=artifact["uids"].astype(np.int64, copy=True),
                item_ids=artifact["item_ids"].astype(np.int64, copy=True),
                packed=artifact["packed_eligible"].astype(np.uint8, copy=True),
            )
        expected = (len(result.uids), (len(result.item_ids) + 7) // 8)
        if result.packed.shape != expected:
            raise ValueError(
                f"invalid candidate artifact shape {result.packed.shape}; "
                f"expected {expected}"
            )
        return result


@dataclass(frozen=True)
class SequenceData:
    item_ids: np.ndarray
24

read_file train_current_model.py

+08:40
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 2165,
  "start_line": 1930,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1930-2165 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 2166.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    parser.add_argument("--device", choices=("cpu", "mps"), default="cpu")
    parser.add_argument("--threads", type=int, default=8)
    parser.add_argument("--bptt-steps", type=int, default=Config.bptt_steps)
    parser.add_argument(
        "--user-batch-size", type=int, default=Config.user_batch_size
    )
    parser.add_argument("--epochs", type=int, default=Config.epochs)
    parser.add_argument("--learning-rate", type=float, default=Config.learning_rate)
    parser.add_argument(
        "--loss-microbatch-size",
        type=int,
        default=Config.loss_microbatch_size,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--negative-filter-scope",
        choices=("full-training-history", "last-100"),
        default=Config.negative_filter_scope,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--target-weighting",
        choices=("discovery-graded", "organic-strong", "uniform"),
        default=Config.target_weighting,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--ordinary-target-weight",
        type=float,
        default=Config.ordinary_target_weight,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--organic-strong-target-weight",
        type=float,
        default=Config.organic_strong_target_weight,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--organic-like-target-weight",
        type=float,
        default=Config.organic_like_target_weight,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--discovery-horizon-days",
        type=int,
        default=Config.discovery_horizon_days,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--validation-fraction",
        type=float,
        default=Config.validation_fraction,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--max-train-targets-per-user",
        type=int,
        default=Config.max_train_targets_per_user,
        help="retain this many recent pre-validation targets per user; 0 is uncapped",
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--max-validation-targets-per-user",
        type=int,
        default=Config.max_validation_targets_per_user,
        help="retain this many final validation targets per user; 0 is uncapped",
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--early-stopping-patience",
        type=int,
        default=Config.early_stopping_patience,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--early-stopping-min-delta",
        type=float,
        default=Config.early_stopping_min_delta,
    )
    parser.add_argument("--checkpoint-dir", type=Path)
    parser.add_argument("--resume-checkpoint", type=Path)
    parser.add_argument("--seed", type=int, default=Config.seed)
    parser.add_argument("--ranking-batch-size", type=int, default=64)
    parser.add_argument("--prepare-only", action="store_true")
    args = parser.parse_args()

    if args.threads < 1 or args.bptt_steps < 2 or args.user_batch_size < 1:
        parser.error("threads, BPTT steps, and user batch size must be positive")
    if (
        args.epochs < 1
        or args.learning_rate <= 0
        or args.loss_microbatch_size < 1
        or args.early_stopping_patience < 1
        or args.early_stopping_min_delta < 0
        or args.ordinary_target_weight <= 0
        or args.organic_strong_target_weight <= 0
        or args.organic_like_target_weight <= 0
        or args.discovery_horizon_days < 1
        or args.max_train_targets_per_user < 0
        or args.max_validation_targets_per_user < 0
    ):
        parser.error("training counts, learning rate, and patience are invalid")
    if not 0.0 < args.validation_fraction < 1.0:
        parser.error("validation fraction must be strictly between zero and one")
    public = args.public_dir.resolve()
    if not (public / "data" / "candidate_catalog.parquet").is_file():
        parser.error(f"public task data not found under {public}")
    config = Config(
        bptt_steps=args.bptt_steps,
        user_batch_size=args.user_batch_size,
        epochs=args.epochs,
        learning_rate=args.learning_rate,
        loss_microbatch_size=args.loss_microbatch_size,
        negative_filter_scope=args.negative_filter_scope,
        target_weighting=args.target_weighting,
        ordinary_target_weight=args.ordinary_target_weight,
        organic_strong_target_weight=args.organic_strong_target_weight,
        organic_like_target_weight=args.organic_like_target_weight,
        discovery_horizon_days=args.discovery_horizon_days,
        validation_fraction=args.validation_fraction,
        max_train_targets_per_user=args.max_train_targets_per_user,
        max_validation_targets_per_user=args.max_validation_targets_per_user,
        early_stopping_patience=args.early_stopping_patience,
        early_stopping_min_delta=args.early_stopping_min_delta,
        seed=args.seed,
    )
    torch.set_num_threads(args.threads)
    torch.set_num_interop_threads(1)
    seed_everything(config.seed)
    device = torch.device(args.device)
    if device.type == "mps" and not torch.backends.mps.is_available():
        parser.error("MPS was requested but is unavailable")

    started = time.monotonic()
    prepared, eligibility = load_or_prepare(
        public,
        args.stage,
        config,
        args.prepared_cache.resolve() if args.prepared_cache else None,
    )
    target_partition = chronological_target_partition(
        prepared,
        config.validation_fraction,
        config.max_train_targets_per_user,
        config.max_validation_targets_per_user,
    )
    if args.prepare_only:
        print(
            json.dumps(
                {
                    "stage": args.stage,
                    "sequence_users": len(prepared.user_ids),
                    "sequence_tokens": len(prepared.sequence_items),
                    "next_item_targets": prepared.target_count,
                    "selected_training_targets": int(
                        target_partition.training_counts.sum()
                    ),
                    "selected_validation_targets": int(
                        target_partition.validation_counts.sum()
                    ),
                    "discarded_old_targets": int(
                        target_partition.window_starts.sum()
                    ),
                    "target_users": len(eligibility.uids),
                    "runtime_seconds": round(time.monotonic() - started, 3),
                    "config": asdict(config),
                },
                indent=2,
            )
        )
        return 0

    model, training_history = train_model(
        public,
        args.stage,
        prepared,
        config,
        device,
        args.checkpoint_dir.resolve() if args.checkpoint_dir else None,
        args.resume_checkpoint.resolve() if args.resume_checkpoint else None,
    )
    ranking, embedding_diagnostics = rank_candidates(
        model,
        prepared,
        eligibility,
        config,
        device,
        args.ranking_batch_size,
    )
    write_ranking(ranking, args.output.resolve())
    print(
        json.dumps(
            {
                "baseline": "yambda-windowed-sequence-two-tower-base",
                "stage": args.stage,
                "output": str(args.output.resolve()),
                "rows": len(ranking),
                "users": int(ranking.uid.nunique()),
                "runtime_seconds": round(time.monotonic() - started, 3),
                "public_inputs_only": True,
                "architecture": {
                    "family": "pure-windowed-sequence-two-tower",
                    "sequence_training": (
                        "every-adjacent-target-within-recent-chronological-window"
                    ),
                    "sequence_encoder": "one-layer-GRU-dense-timestep-loss",
                    "bptt_hidden_state": "carried-and-detached",
                    "model_selection": "chronological-validation-BCE-early-stopping",
                    "loss_execution": "gradient-accumulated-microbatches",
                    "user_id_embedding": False,
                    "user_mlp": "582-512-256-192",
                    "item_mlp": "196-512-256-192",
                    "normalization": "none",
                    "score": "raw-dot-product",
                    "objective": "sample-weighted-BCE-at-every-timestep",
                    "negative_sampling": (
                        "24-uniform-plus-8-propensity-corrected-inbatch"
                    ),
                    "false_negative_filter": config.negative_filter_scope,
                    "target_weighting": config.target_weighting,
                },
                "config": asdict(config),
                "sequence_tokens": len(prepared.sequence_items),
                "all_next_item_targets": prepared.target_count,
                "selected_training_targets": int(
                    target_partition.training_counts.sum()
                ),
                "selected_validation_targets": int(
                    target_partition.validation_counts.sum()
                ),
                "discarded_old_targets": int(target_partition.window_starts.sum()),
                "training_history": training_history,
                "embedding_diagnostics": embedding_diagnostics,
                "torch_version": torch.__version__,
                "device": str(device),
            },
            indent=2,
        )
    )
    return 0


if __name__ == "__main__":
    raise SystemExit(main())
25

read_file train_current_model.py

+08:44
Recorded reasoning summary 34 words

Investigating Caching Mechanism

I'm currently digging into the load_or_prepare function, specifically examining how the caching mechanism (--prepared-cache) operates. My focus is on verifying the integrity and functionality of save_cache and load_cache within this process.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 470,
  "end_line": 535
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 470-535 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 536.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---

def cache_metadata(stage: str, config: Config) -> dict[str, object]:
    return {
        "cache_version": CACHE_VERSION,
        "stage": stage,
        "positive_listen_threshold": base.LISTEN_POSITIVE_THRESHOLD,
        "profile_lookback_days": base.PROFILE_LOOKBACK_DAYS,
        "event_time_feature": "exp-negative-gap-over-60-days",
    }


def save_cache(
    path: Path, prepared: SequenceData, stage: str, config: Config
) -> None:
    path.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
    np.savez(
        path,
        metadata=np.asarray(json.dumps(cache_metadata(stage, config), sort_keys=True)),
        **prepared.__dict__,
    )
    log(f"saved public-derived full-sequence cache: {path}")


def load_cache(path: Path, stage: str, config: Config) -> SequenceData:
    with np.load(path, allow_pickle=False) as artifact:
        actual = json.loads(str(artifact["metadata"].item()))
        expected = cache_metadata(stage, config)
        if actual != expected:
            raise RuntimeError(f"sequence cache differs: {actual} != {expected}")
        values = {
            field: artifact[field].copy()
            for field in SequenceData.__dataclass_fields__
        }
    prepared = SequenceData(**values)
    log(
        f"loaded full-sequence cache: tokens={len(prepared.sequence_items):,} "
        f"targets={prepared.target_count:,}"
    )
    return prepared


def load_or_prepare(
    public: Path,
    stage: str,
    config: Config,
    cache: Path | None,
) -> tuple[SequenceData, CandidateSet]:
    candidate_name = (
        "validation_eligible_candidates.npz"
        if stage == "validation"
        else "test_eligible_candidates.npz"
    )
    eligibility = CandidateSet.read(public / "data" / candidate_name)
    if cache is not None and cache.is_file():
        prepared = load_cache(cache, stage, config)
        if not np.array_equal(prepared.item_ids, eligibility.item_ids):
            raise RuntimeError("cached catalog differs from candidate artifact")
        return prepared, eligibility
    prepared, built_eligibility = prepare_data(public, stage, config)
    if cache is not None:
        save_cache(cache, prepared, stage, config)
    return prepared, built_eligibility


def build_item_correction(
    prepared: SequenceData,
26

Check available disk space

+08:48
Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Optimizing Data Handling

I'm considering caching the data preparation step to bypass the ~50-second overhead per experiment. I'm currently investigating the potential size of the cache file for SequenceData arrays to assess the feasibility of this optimization.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck available disk space Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "df -h",
  "description": "Check available disk space"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
overlay          96G   14G   83G  15% /
tmpfs            64M     0   64M   0% /dev
shm              64M     0   64M   0% /dev/shm
/dev/root        96G   14G   83G  15% /etc/hosts
tmpfs           7.7G     0  7.7G   0% /proc/acpi
tmpfs           7.7G     0  7.7G   0% /proc/scsi
tmpfs           7.7G     0  7.7G   0% /sys/firmware
Process Group PGID: 1707
</untrusted_context>
27

grep_search command

+08:54
Recorded reasoning summary 30 words

Analyzing Problem Constraints

I'm focusing on the request-time latency budget and the precomputation of item vectors. My current thoughts are centered on how the single user vector computation impacts this.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Improving Negative Sampling

My current focus is on refining the training objective, specifically how negative examples are selected and utilized. I'm diagnosing limitations within the existing negative-sampling strategy, aiming to optimize it within the given CPU budget.

Tool callgrep_searchTool call Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "pattern": "dislike",
  "dir_path": "/app/solution"
}

Tool response

Found 40 matches for pattern "dislike" in path "/app/solution":
---
File: train_current_model.py
L110:     disliked_states: np.ndarray
L114:     inference_disliked_items: np.ndarray
L176:     active_dislikes: dict[int, int],
L179:     disliked_states: list[np.ndarray],
L183:     disliked_states.append(
L184:         base.pack_active_items(active_dislikes, base.DISLIKE_ITEMS, n_items)
L186:     state_counts.append((len(active_likes), len(active_dislikes)))
L252:     disliked_states: list[np.ndarray],
L279:     active_dislikes: dict[int, int] = {}
L293:                 else active_dislikes
L304:                 active_dislikes,
L307:                 disliked_states,
L320:     dislike_count: int,
L337:     result[5] = np.log1p(dislike_count) / 4.0
L369:     inference_likes, inference_dislikes, like_counts, dislike_counts = (
L383:     disliked_states = [
L384:         np.full(base.DISLIKE_ITEMS, n_items, dtype=np.uint16)
L405:             disliked_states,
L427:                 int(dislike_counts[inference_row]),
L440:             np.log1p(dislike_counts[missing]) / 4.0
L455:         disliked_states=np.stack(disliked_states),
L459:         inference_disliked_items=inference_dislikes,
L784:     disliked_items = torch.from_numpy(
L785:         prepared.disliked_states[unique_states].astype(np.int64)
L788:     disliked_vectors = model._mean_context_channel(disliked_items)
L793:         disliked_vectors[inverse_rows],
L802:     disliked_vectors: torch.Tensor,
L807:             [sequence_vectors, liked_vectors, disliked_vectors, user_features],
L1147:         liked_vectors, disliked_vectors, _ = pool_explicit_states(
L1159:             disliked_vectors,
L1844:         disliked_items = torch.from_numpy(
L1845:             prepared.inference_disliked_items[output_rows].astype(np.int64)
L1851:             model._mean_context_channel(disliked_items),
---
File: two_tower_model.py
L22: DISLIKE_ITEMS = 24
L184:         ("dislikes", 1, 1, 0),
L185:         ("undislikes", 1, 0, 1),
L265:     disliked = np.full((len(uids), DISLIKE_ITEMS), n_items, dtype=np.uint16)
L267:     dislike_counts = np.zeros(len(uids), dtype=np.int32)
L270:         ("disliked", DISLIKE_ITEMS, disliked, dislike_counts),
L281:     return liked, disliked, like_counts, dislike_counts
---
28

grep_search command

+09:13
Recorded reasoning summary 33 words

Clarifying Vector Usage

I'm realizing disliked items aren't negative training targets but context within the user tower (disliked_vectors). This prompts me to re-examine how negative examples are actually incorporated during the training phase.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Investigating Negative Sampling

I'm digging into train_current_model.py, specifically invalid_full_history_negatives. It appears to be filtering out negatives already present in the user's history or liked items. I'm now cross-referencing this with draw_full_history_filtered_negatives to fully grasp the sampling logic.

Recorded reasoning summary 34 words

Refining Negative Sampling

I'm now focusing on the draw_mixed_negatives function. I'm analyzing how uniform negatives are sampled and how in-batch negatives are considered, especially when config.inbatch_negatives is active, to ensure comprehensive negative example generation.

Recorded reasoning summary 32 words

Analyzing In-Batch Negatives

I'm scrutinizing the logic for drawing in-batch negatives within draw_training_negatives. Specifically, I'm tracing the targets variable and how flat_scored masks are applied to sequence_outputs to understand the selection process.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Examining Positive Item Sources

I'm currently scrutinizing the origin of positive_items within the training loop. It appears its length directly corresponds to flat_scored, indicating it's derived from a subset of the data, which I'm now tracing back to understand its composition.

Recorded reasoning summary 47 words

Revising Negative Sampling Logic

I'm recalibrating my understanding of negative sampling. It seems draw_training_negatives is invoked per target, generating a substantial number of uniform negatives. I'm now scrutinizing how these, along with in-batch negatives, are utilized in score_target_microbatches, especially concerning unique item selection and candidate vector generation.

Recorded reasoning summary 32 words

Questioning Loss Calculation

I'm re-examining the score_target_microbatches loss function. The specific calculation involving positive_loss and corrected_negative_loss is raising questions, and I'm now deeply scrutinizing the implications of softplus and the corrected_negative_loss implementation.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Analyzing Loss Components

I'm now dissecting the corrected_negative_loss function in detail. The calculation of raw as F.softplus(logits) appears equivalent to -log(sigmoid(logits)). I'm tracing how the weighted sum of in-batch negatives and the mean of uniform negatives contribute to the final loss value.

Recorded reasoning summary 65 words

Revising Loss Averaging

I'm re-evaluating how negative losses are averaged. It appears the calculation divides the sum of uniform negative softplus values and a weighted average of in-batch negative softplus values by the total number of negatives. This results in an average negative loss per sample. Then, this average is combined with the positive loss, effectively balancing one positive against the average of many negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 53 words

Evaluating Retrieval Objective

I'm questioning if BCE with average negative loss is standard for retrieval when dealing with large catalogs. My focus is now shifting to understanding typical two-tower training objectives like InfoNCE and sampled softmax, and how they contrast with the current model's approach, especially in light of the prompt's specific constraints.

Tool callgrep_searchTool call Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "dir_path": "/app/solution",
  "pattern": "BCE|CrossEntropy|loss"
}

Tool response

Found 58 matches for pattern "BCE|CrossEntropy|loss" in path "/app/solution":
---
File: train_current_model.py
L6: loss.  The fast default retains each user's most recent 128 training targets and
L9: computes all of its timestep losses and carries the detached GRU hidden state
L55:     loss_microbatch_size: int = 65_536
L128:     """A contiguous recent target window and its chronological BCE split."""
L590:         # chronological BCE suffix starts at T + 1 and is intentionally absent.
L845: def corrected_negative_loss(
L894:     """Select a recent contiguous window with a final out-of-time BCE suffix."""
L1125:     """Compute one logical block's exact BCE in bounded-memory slices."""
L1132:         "loss_sum": 0.0,
L1138:     for begin in range(0, target_count, config.loss_microbatch_size):
L1139:         end = min(begin + config.loss_microbatch_size, target_count)
L1171:         positive_loss = F.softplus(-positive_logits)
L1172:         negative_loss = corrected_negative_loss(
L1178:         loss_sum = (
L1179:             selected_weights * (positive_loss + negative_loss) / 2.0
L1181:         if not bool(torch.isfinite(loss_sum)):
L1182:             raise RuntimeError("dense next-item training produced non-finite loss")
L1184:             (loss_sum / total_weight).backward()
L1188:         statistics["loss_sum"] += float(loss_sum.detach().cpu())
L1228:     total_loss = 0.0
L1327:             total_loss += statistics["loss_sum"]
L1337:                 batch_bce = statistics["loss_sum"] / max(
L1340:                 running_bce = total_loss / max(total_weight, 1.0e-12)
L1344:                     f"batch_bce={batch_bce:.6f} "
L1345:                     f"running_bce={running_bce:.6f} "
L1351:         "loss": total_loss / max(total_weight, 1.0e-12),
L1364: def evaluate_validation_bce(
L1376:     """Measure deterministic BCE on each user's chronological target suffix."""
L1388:     total_loss = 0.0
L1475:             total_loss += statistics["loss_sum"]
L1481:         "validation_loss": total_loss / max(total_weight, 1.0e-12),
L1539:         f"chronological BCE window: train={int(training_counts.sum()):,} "
L1571:     best_loss = float("inf")
L1657:             prior.pop("validation_loss", None)
L1659:                 "BCE objective changed: filter "
L1664:                 "recomputing the resume checkpoint's validation BCE"
L1666:         if "validation_loss" not in prior:
L1668:                 evaluate_validation_bce(
L1682:         best_loss = float(prior["validation_loss"])
L1686:             f"resumed validation-BCE training: epoch={start_epoch} "
L1687:             f"loss={best_loss:.6f}"
L1705:         validation = evaluate_validation_bce(
L1731:             diagnostics["validation_loss"]
L1732:             < best_loss - config.early_stopping_min_delta
L1735:             best_loss = diagnostics["validation_loss"]
L1754:             f"epoch={epoch}/{config.epochs} train_loss={diagnostics['loss']:.5f} "
L1755:             f"validation_loss={diagnostics['validation_loss']:.5f} "
L1766:                 f"best_epoch={best_epoch} best_validation_loss={best_loss:.6f}"
L1775:         f"restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch={best_epoch} "
L1776:         f"loss={best_loss:.6f}"
L1939:         "--loss-microbatch-size",
L1941:         default=Config.loss_microbatch_size,
L2012:         or args.loss_microbatch_size < 1
L2033:         loss_microbatch_size=args.loss_microbatch_size,
L2126:                     "sequence_encoder": "one-layer-GRU-dense-timestep-loss",
L2128:                     "model_selection": "chronological-validation-BCE-early-stopping",
L2129:                     "loss_execution": "gradient-accumulated-microbatches",
L2135:                     "objective": "sample-weighted-BCE-at-every-timestep",
---
29

Inspect candidate_catalog.parquet

+10:31
Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Refining Architectural Details

I'm currently focusing on the specifics of the "pure-windowed-sequence-two-tower" architecture, particularly how sequence training integrates within this structure. The key is to ensure efficient data flow and model convergence within these constraints.

Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Integrating Model Configuration

I'm now examining the specific configuration parameters related to temporal modeling. My focus is on how the "every-adjacent-target-within-recent-chronological-window" strategy, coupled with the GRU encoder and specific BPTT handling, impacts overall sequence training.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Exploring Target Weighting

I'm now delving into the implications of the discovery-graded target weighting strategy. My current focus is on understanding its underlying logic and how it differs from the organic-strong baseline, particularly in relation to load_organic_like_outcomes and the discovery_horizon_days parameter.

Recorded reasoning summary 57 words

Investigating Negative Sampling

I'm now meticulously examining the current trainer's objective function, specifically how it selects and utilizes negative examples during training. My immediate focus is on diagnosing limitations within the existing negative-sampling strategy, with the goal of improving it under the fixed CPU budget. I'll be delving into the details of draw_training_negatives, draw_full_history_filtered_negatives, draw_filtered_mixed_negatives, and build_item_correction.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Analyzing Correction Logic

I am currently investigating the build_item_correction function to understand its role in estimating in-batch propensities. My focus is on how it aggregates item counts and calculates probabilities, specifically the +1.0 and +len(counts) additions, to refine the training targets.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Refining Correction Mechanisms

I'm currently analyzing the build_item_correction function in detail. My focus is on understanding the mathematical underpinnings of in-batch negative correction, specifically how the normalization and clipping operations, influenced by inbatch_correction_power, inbatch_correction_min, and inbatch_correction_max, contribute to refining training targets.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Analyzing Correction Integration

I am now examining how the item_correction values are integrated into the training process. My focus is on their use within draw_full_history_filtered_negatives and subsequently in corrected_negative_loss, where they modulate the negative_weights and directly influence the loss calculation for negative samples.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Examining Correction Weights

I'm now scrutinizing how correction weights are applied within corrected_negative_loss. Specifically, I'm tracing their lineage from build_item_correction and their usage in modulating the in-batch negative loss contribution, noting how the sum of weights is used for normalization.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Revising Negative Sampling Logic

I'm rethinking the importance sampling weights for in-batch negatives. My current analysis suggests the calculated raw weights are inversely proportional to item popularity, meaning popular items get smaller weights, which seems counterintuitive for an unbiased estimator.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Revising Importance Sampling

I'm re-evaluating how importance sampling weights for in-batch negatives are computed. My current hypothesis is that the inverse proportionality to item popularity may not be the desired outcome for an unbiased estimator, prompting a deeper dive into the sampling mechanism itself.

Recorded reasoning summary 34 words

Revising In-Batch Sampling

I've realized that my previous assessment of importance sampling was inaccurate. The current mechanism samples uniformly from unique targets, not proportionally to frequency, which contradicts the intention of item_correction's frequency-based calculations.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Clarifying In-Batch Negatives

I'm now clarifying what constitutes in-batch negative sampling within the standard two-tower architecture. My focus is on how the similarity matrix inherently creates negatives from off-diagonal elements, and how this contrasts with current candidate vector generation strategies.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Analyzing Loss Calculation

I am now examining the loss calculation, specifically the use of F.softplus(-positive_logits) for positive examples and corrected_negative_loss for negatives. I'm also looking at how selected_weights and division by 2 contribute to the final loss_sum.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Investigating Objective Function

I am now thoroughly examining the trainer's objective function, particularly how it incorporates negative examples. My immediate concern is diagnosing any limitations within the current negative-sampling strategy to improve its efficiency while staying within the fixed CPU budget.

Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect candidate_catalog.parquet Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 -c \"import pandas as pd\ndf = pd.read_parquet('/task/data/candidate_catalog.parquet')\nprint(df.info())\nprint(df.head(10))\n\"",
  "description": "Inspect candidate_catalog.parquet"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: <class 'pandas.core.frame.DataFrame'>
RangeIndex: 30000 entries, 0 to 29999
Data columns (total 4 columns):
 #   Column                    Non-Null Count  Dtype 
---  ------                    --------------  ----- 
 0   item_id                   30000 non-null  uint32
 1   positive_listens          30000 non-null  int64 
 2   organic_positive_listens  30000 non-null  uint64
 3   popularity_rank           30000 non-null  int32 
dtypes: int32(1), int64(1), uint32(1), uint64(1)
memory usage: 703.3 KB
None
   item_id  positive_listens  organic_positive_listens  popularity_rank
0  5862961             26615                     20620                1
1  6901374             25536                     17347                2
2  5635052             24691                     17194                3
3  3542184             24075                     17699                4
4  9378983             24036                     18195                5
5  5463340             22746                     17398                6
6  8213481             22505                     17071                7
7   906358             22238                     17183                8
8  2859641             18380                     13704                9
9  3033749             16682                     12267               10
Process Group PGID: 1714
</untrusted_context>
30

read_file two_tower_model.py

+10:35
Tool callread_file/app/solution/two_tower_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/two_tower_model.py",
  "end_line": 100,
  "start_line": 60
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 60-100 of 434 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 101.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    channel: np.ndarray
    active: np.ndarray
    organic_like: np.ndarray


def log(message: str) -> None:
    print(message, file=sys.stderr, flush=True)


def build_item_features(catalog: pd.DataFrame) -> np.ndarray:
    """Return four standardized features built only from the public catalog."""
    positives = catalog.positive_listens.to_numpy(dtype=np.float64, copy=False)
    organic = catalog.organic_positive_listens.to_numpy(dtype=np.float64, copy=False)
    popularity_rank = catalog.popularity_rank.to_numpy(dtype=np.float64, copy=False)
    features = np.column_stack(
        [
            np.log1p(positives),
            np.log1p(organic),
            organic / np.maximum(positives, 1.0),
            1.0 - (popularity_rank - 1.0) / max(len(catalog) - 1, 1),
        ]
    )
    means = features.mean(axis=0, keepdims=True)
    scales = np.maximum(features.std(axis=0, keepdims=True), 1.0e-6)
    standardized = ((features - means) / scales).astype(np.float32)
    if not np.isfinite(standardized).all():
        raise RuntimeError("catalog features contain non-finite values")
    return standardized


def _combine_listen_chunks(parts: list[ListenEvents]) -> ListenEvents:
    if len(parts) == 1:
        return parts[0]
    timestamps = np.concatenate([part.timestamps for part in parts])
    items = np.concatenate([part.items for part in parts])
    organic = np.concatenate([part.organic for part in parts])
    completion = np.concatenate([part.completion_pct for part in parts])
    order = np.argsort(timestamps, kind="stable")
    return ListenEvents(
        timestamps=timestamps[order],
        items=items[order],
31

Check counts and stats of explicit actions

+10:38
Recorded reasoning summary 34 words

Developing Item Features

I've finalized the creation of four distinct item features. These include log transformations of positive and organic counts, a ratio of organic to positive values, and a normalized popularity rank metric.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck counts and stats of explicit actions Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 -c \"import pandas as pd\nfor name in ['train_likes', 'train_dislikes', 'train_unlikes', 'train_undislikes']:\n    df = pd.read_parquet(f'/task/data/{name}.parquet')\n    print(name, len(df), 'unique users:', df.uid.nunique(), 'unique items:', df.item_id.nunique())\n\"",
  "description": "Check counts and stats of explicit actions"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: train_likes 814831 unique users: 8144 unique items: 172303
train_dislikes 101075 unique users: 5732 unique items: 50876
train_unlikes 292665 unique users: 6197 unique items: 113072
train_undislikes 19960 unique users: 2769 unique items: 14725
Process Group PGID: 1731
</untrusted_context>
32

Inspect train_listens stats

+10:48
Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect train_listens stats Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 -c \"import pandas as pd\ndf = pd.read_parquet('/task/data/train_listens.parquet', columns=['uid', 'timestamp', 'item_id', 'is_organic', 'played_ratio_pct'])\nprint('total listens:', len(df))\nprint('played_ratio_pct summary:\\n', df['played_ratio_pct'].describe())\nprint('is_organic counts:\\n', df['is_organic'].value_counts())\nprint('listens >= 50%:', (df['played_ratio_pct'] >= 50).sum())\nprint('listens < 50% (skipped):', (df['played_ratio_pct'] < 50).sum())\nprint('listens < 20% (hard skips):', (df['played_ratio_pct'] < 20).sum())\n\"",
  "description": "Inspect train_listens stats"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: total listens: 43484159
played_ratio_pct summary:
 count    4.348416e+07
mean     6.465021e+01
std      4.412183e+01
min      0.000000e+00
25%      7.000000e+00
50%      1.000000e+02
75%      1.000000e+02
max      1.590000e+02
Name: played_ratio_pct, dtype: float64
is_organic counts:
 is_organic
1    22477622
0    21006537
Name: count, dtype: int64
listens >= 50%: 27500755
listens < 50% (skipped): 15983404
listens < 20% (hard skips): 13293566
Process Group PGID: 1750
</untrusted_context>
33

grep_search command

+11:02
Tool callgrep_searchTool call Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "dir_path": "/app/solution",
  "pattern": "LISTEN_POSITIVE_THRESHOLD"
}

Tool response

Found 3 matches for pattern "LISTEN_POSITIVE_THRESHOLD" in path "/app/solution":
---
File: train_current_model.py
L240-         (completion_sum - before_completion)
L241-         / np.maximum(counts, 1)
L242-         / 100.0
L243-     ).astype(np.float16)
L244-     return result
L245- 
L246- 
L247- def build_sequence_parts(
L248-     listens: base.ListenEvents,
L249-     explicit: base.ExplicitEvents,
L250-     n_items: int,
L251-     liked_states: list[np.ndarray],
L252-     disliked_states: list[np.ndarray],
L253-     state_counts: list[tuple[int, int]],
L254- ) -> tuple[np.ndarray, np.ndarray, np.ndarray, np.ndarray, np.ndarray] | None:
L255:     qualifying = listens.completion_pct >= base.LISTEN_POSITIVE_THRESHOLD
L256-     timestamps = listens.timestamps[qualifying].astype(np.int64, copy=False)
L257-     items = listens.items[qualifying].astype(np.uint16, copy=False)
L258-     organic = listens.organic[qualifying].astype(np.float32, copy=False)
L259-     completion = listens.completion_pct[qualifying].astype(np.float32, copy=False)
L260-     if not len(items):
L261-         return None
L262- 
L263-     event_features = np.zeros((len(items), 3), dtype=np.float16)
L264-     event_features[:, 0] = organic.astype(np.float16)
L265-     event_features[:, 1] = (
L266-         np.minimum(completion, 100.0) / 100.0
L267-     ).astype(np.float16)
L268-     if len(items) > 1:
L269-         gaps = np.maximum(0, timestamps[1:] - timestamps[:-1])
L270-         event_features[1:, 2] = np.exp(
L460-         inference_user_features=inference_user_features,
L461-     )
L462-     log(
L463-         f"prepared stage={stage} sequence_users={len(prepared.user_ids):,} "
L464-         f"tokens={len(prepared.sequence_items):,} "
L465-         f"next_item_targets={prepared.target_count:,} "
L466-         f"states={len(prepared.liked_states):,}"
L467-     )
L468-     return prepared, eligibility
L469- 
L470- 
L471- def cache_metadata(stage: str, config: Config) -> dict[str, object]:
L472-     return {
L473-         "cache_version": CACHE_VERSION,
L474-         "stage": stage,
L475:         "positive_listen_threshold": base.LISTEN_POSITIVE_THRESHOLD,
L476-         "profile_lookback_days": base.PROFILE_LOOKBACK_DAYS,
L477-         "event_time_feature": "exp-negative-gap-over-60-days",
L478-     }
L479- 
L480- 
L481- def save_cache(
L482-     path: Path, prepared: SequenceData, stage: str, config: Config
L483- ) -> None:
L484-     path.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
L485-     np.savez(
L486-         path,
L487-         metadata=np.asarray(json.dumps(cache_metadata(stage, config), sort_keys=True)),
L488-         **prepared.__dict__,
L489-     )
L490-     log(f"saved public-derived full-sequence cache: {path}")
---
File: two_tower_model.py
L4- import sys
L5- from dataclasses import dataclass
L6- from pathlib import Path
L7- from typing import Iterator
L8- 
L9- import numpy as np
L10- import pandas as pd
L11- import pyarrow.parquet as pq
L12- import torch
L13- from torch import nn
L14- 
L15- 
L16- DAY = 86_400
L17- TRAIN_END = 24_786_800
L18- VALIDATION_END = 25_393_400
L19: LISTEN_POSITIVE_THRESHOLD = 50
L20- PROFILE_LOOKBACK_DAYS = 120
L21- LIKE_ITEMS = 48
L22- DISLIKE_ITEMS = 24
L23- TOP_N = 100
L24- 
L25- 
L26- @dataclass(frozen=True)
L27- class TowerConfig:
L28-     sequence_length: int = 100
L29-     embedding_dim: int = 192
L30-     hidden_dim: int = 192
L31-     user_hidden_1: int = 512
L32-     user_hidden_2: int = 256
L33-     item_hidden_1: int = 512
L34-     item_hidden_2: int = 256
---
34

read_file two_tower_model.py

+11:06
Tool callread_file/app/solution/two_tower_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "start_line": 100,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/two_tower_model.py",
  "end_line": 170
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 100-170 of 434 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 171.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
        items=items[order],
        organic=organic[order],
        completion_pct=completion[order],
    )


def iter_listen_users(
    path: Path, item_index: pd.Index
) -> Iterator[tuple[int, ListenEvents]]:
    """Stream one uid-sorted public listen file one user at a time."""
    parquet = pq.ParquetFile(path)
    pending_uid: int | None = None
    pending: list[ListenEvents] = []
    previous_uid = -1
    for batch in parquet.iter_batches(
        batch_size=750_000,
        columns=["uid", "timestamp", "item_id", "is_organic", "played_ratio_pct"],
    ):
        frame = batch.to_pandas()
        mapped = item_index.get_indexer(frame.item_id.to_numpy(dtype=np.int64))
        keep = mapped >= 0
        if not np.any(keep):
            continue
        uids = frame.uid.to_numpy(dtype=np.int64, copy=False)[keep]
        timestamps = frame.timestamp.to_numpy(dtype=np.int64, copy=False)[keep]
        items = mapped[keep].astype(np.int32, copy=False)
        organic = frame.is_organic.to_numpy(dtype=np.uint8, copy=False)[keep]
        completion = frame.played_ratio_pct.to_numpy(dtype=np.uint16, copy=False)[keep]
        if np.any(uids[1:] < uids[:-1]):
            raise RuntimeError(f"{path.name} is not sorted by uid")
        boundaries = np.r_[
            0,
            np.flatnonzero(uids[1:] != uids[:-1]) + 1,
            len(uids),
        ]
        for start, end in zip(boundaries[:-1], boundaries[1:]):
            uid = int(uids[start])
            part = ListenEvents(
                timestamps[start:end].copy(),
                items[start:end].copy(),
                organic[start:end].copy(),
                completion[start:end].copy(),
            )
            if pending_uid is None:
                pending_uid = uid
            elif uid != pending_uid:
                if pending_uid < previous_uid:
                    raise RuntimeError(f"{path.name} user order regressed")
                yield pending_uid, _combine_listen_chunks(pending)
                previous_uid = pending_uid
                pending_uid = uid
                pending = []
            pending.append(part)
    if pending_uid is not None:
        yield pending_uid, _combine_listen_chunks(pending)


def merge_listen_streams(
    paths: list[Path], item_index: pd.Index
) -> Iterator[tuple[int, ListenEvents]]:
    """Merge uid-sorted public listen files without materializing them."""
    streams = [iter(iter_listen_users(path, item_index)) for path in paths]
    heads: list[tuple[int, ListenEvents] | None] = [
        next(stream, None) for stream in streams
    ]
    while any(head is not None for head in heads):
        uid = min(head[0] for head in heads if head is not None)
        parts: list[ListenEvents] = []
        for position, head in enumerate(heads):
            if head is not None and head[0] == uid:
                parts.append(head[1])
35

read_file train_current_model.py

+11:08
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 460,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 340
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 340-460 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 461.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---

def prepare_data(
    public: Path, stage: str, config: Config
) -> tuple[SequenceData, CandidateSet]:
    data = public / "data"
    catalog = pd.read_parquet(data / "candidate_catalog.parquet").sort_values(
        "popularity_rank"
    )
    item_ids = catalog.item_id.to_numpy(dtype=np.int64, copy=True)
    item_index = pd.Index(item_ids)
    n_items = len(item_ids)
    if n_items >= np.iinfo(np.uint16).max:
        raise RuntimeError("uint16 item storage is too small for this catalog")

    if stage == "validation":
        prefixes = ("train",)
        history_end = base.TRAIN_END
        candidate_name = "validation_eligible_candidates.npz"
        state_name = "validation_preference_state.parquet"
    else:
        prefixes = ("train", "val")
        history_end = base.VALIDATION_END
        candidate_name = "test_eligible_candidates.npz"
        state_name = "test_preference_state.parquet"
    eligibility = CandidateSet.read(data / candidate_name)
    if not np.array_equal(eligibility.item_ids, item_ids):
        raise RuntimeError("catalog and candidate artifact item order differ")

    explicit_by_user = base.load_explicit_events(data, prefixes, item_index)
    inference_likes, inference_dislikes, like_counts, dislike_counts = (
        base.load_inference_state(
            data / state_name,
            item_index,
            eligibility.uids,
            n_items,
        )
    )
    inference_rows = {int(uid): row for row, uid in enumerate(eligibility.uids)}
    inference_user_features = np.zeros((len(eligibility.uids), 6), dtype=np.float32)
    inference_sequence_rows = np.full(len(eligibility.uids), -1, dtype=np.int32)

    # Snapshot zero is the shared empty explicit state.
    liked_states = [np.full(base.LIKE_ITEMS, n_items, dtype=np.uint16)]
    disliked_states = [
        np.full(base.DISLIKE_ITEMS, n_items, dtype=np.uint16)
    ]
    state_counts: list[tuple[int, int]] = [(0, 0)]
    user_ids: list[int] = []
    offsets = [0]
    timestamp_parts: list[np.ndarray] = []
    item_parts: list[np.ndarray] = []
    event_parts: list[np.ndarray] = []
    activity_parts: list[np.ndarray] = []
    state_parts: list[np.ndarray] = []

    listen_paths = [data / f"{prefix}_listens.parquet" for prefix in prefixes]
    started = time.monotonic()
    for seen_users, (uid, listens) in enumerate(
        base.merge_listen_streams(listen_paths, item_index), start=1
    ):
        parts = build_sequence_parts(
            listens,
            explicit_by_user.get(uid, base.empty_explicit_events()),
            n_items,
            liked_states,
            disliked_states,
            state_counts,
        )
        if parts is None:
            continue
        sequence_row = len(user_ids)
        user_ids.append(uid)
        timestamp_parts.append(parts[0].astype(np.uint32, copy=False))
        item_parts.append(parts[1])
        event_parts.append(parts[2])
        activity_parts.append(parts[3])
        state_parts.append(parts[4])
        offsets.append(offsets[-1] + len(parts[1]))
        inference_row = inference_rows.get(uid)
        if inference_row is not None:
            inference_sequence_rows[inference_row] = sequence_row
            inference_user_features[inference_row] = final_user_features(
                parts[0],
                parts[1],
                parts[2],
                history_end,
                int(like_counts[inference_row]),
                int(dislike_counts[inference_row]),
            )
        if seen_users % 1_000 == 0:
            log(
                f"prepared users={seen_users:,} tokens={offsets[-1]:,} "
                f"states={len(liked_states):,} "
                f"elapsed={time.monotonic() - started:.1f}s"
            )

    missing = np.flatnonzero(inference_sequence_rows < 0)
    if len(missing):
        inference_user_features[missing, 4] = np.log1p(like_counts[missing]) / 6.0
        inference_user_features[missing, 5] = (
            np.log1p(dislike_counts[missing]) / 4.0
        )
        log(f"target users without qualifying catalog sequence={len(missing):,}")

    prepared = SequenceData(
        item_ids=item_ids,
        item_features=base.build_item_features(catalog),
        user_ids=np.asarray(user_ids, dtype=np.int64),
        offsets=np.asarray(offsets, dtype=np.int64),
        sequence_timestamps=np.concatenate(timestamp_parts),
        sequence_items=np.concatenate(item_parts),
        event_features=np.concatenate(event_parts),
        activity_features=np.concatenate(activity_parts),
        state_ids=np.concatenate(state_parts),
        liked_states=np.stack(liked_states),
        disliked_states=np.stack(disliked_states),
        state_counts=np.asarray(state_counts, dtype=np.int32),
        inference_user_rows=inference_sequence_rows,
        inference_liked_items=inference_likes,
        inference_disliked_items=inference_dislikes,
        inference_user_features=inference_user_features,
36

Prepare and cache sequence data for validation

+11:11
Recorded reasoning summary 62 words

Optimizing Caching Strategy

I'm focusing on refining the data preparation and caching process. Specifically, I've identified that prepare_data currently filters for completion_pct >= 50 catalog listens. My immediate priority is to implement and save the validation cache now to significantly speed up subsequent validation runs, which were previously taking around 50 seconds each. I'm also about to test running with this optimization.

Tool callrun_shell_commandPrepare and cache sequence data for validation Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Prepare and cache sequence data for validation",
  "command": "python /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --output /app/solution/dummy.parquet \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --prepare-only"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: loaded explicit events: rows=720,270 users=8,220
prepared users=1,000 tokens=2,090,746 states=35,727 elapsed=4.8s
prepared users=2,000 tokens=4,301,266 states=71,242 elapsed=9.7s
prepared users=3,000 tokens=6,486,146 states=109,471 elapsed=14.8s
prepared users=4,000 tokens=8,793,043 states=148,210 elapsed=20.2s
prepared users=5,000 tokens=10,992,205 states=182,596 elapsed=25.0s
prepared users=6,000 tokens=13,061,727 states=217,148 elapsed=29.7s
prepared users=7,000 tokens=15,334,418 states=256,914 elapsed=35.1s
prepared users=8,000 tokens=17,462,672 states=296,703 elapsed=40.4s
prepared users=9,000 tokens=19,568,405 states=331,551 elapsed=45.0s
target users without qualifying catalog sequence=7
prepared stage=validation sequence_users=9,135 tokens=20,056,329 next_item_targets=20,047,194 states=339,133
saved public-derived full-sequence cache: /app/solution/validation_cache.npz
{
  "stage": "validation",
  "sequence_users": 9135,
  "sequence_tokens": 20056329,
  "next_item_targets": 20047194,
  "selected_training_targets": 1052953,
  "selected_validation_targets": 130103,
  "discarded_old_targets": 18864138,
  "target_users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 50.262,
  "config": {
    "bptt_steps": 100,
    "user_batch_size": 64,
    "embedding_dim": 192,
    "hidden_dim": 192,
    "user_hidden_1": 512,
    "user_hidden_2": 256,
    "item_hidden_1": 512,
    "item_hidden_2": 256,
    "dropout": 0.05,
    "epochs": 1,
    "learning_rate": 0.001,
    "weight_decay": 1e-05,
    "gradient_clip": 2.0,
    "loss_microbatch_size": 65536,
    "uniform_negatives": 24,
    "inbatch_negatives": 8,
    "inbatch_correction_power": 0.5,
    "inbatch_correction_min": 0.25,
    "inbatch_correction_max": 4.0,
    "negative_filter_scope": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "organic-strong",
    "ordinary_target_weight": 0.25,
    "organic_strong_target_weight": 1.0,
    "organic_like_target_weight": 3.0,
    "discovery_horizon_days": 7,
    "validation_fraction": 0.1,
    "max_train_targets_per_user": 128,
    "max_validation_targets_per_user": 16,
    "early_stopping_patience": 1,
    "early_stopping_min_delta": 0.0001,
    "seed": 29
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 1773
</untrusted_context>
37

Inspect top recommended items from baseline

+12:17
Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Caching Validation Data

The validation cache is now successfully loaded in seconds using the prepared cache flag, significantly speeding up this step. My focus is now shifting to a detailed exploration of the negative sampling and loss function mechanisms.

Recorded reasoning summary 51 words

Investigating Negative Sampling

I'm delving into the specifics of how negative examples are chosen, particularly focusing on the uniform sampling strategy. My current concern is understanding the implications of sampling from the entire catalog of 30,000 items and whether this distribution aligns with item popularity, a crucial aspect for effective training.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Refining Negative Sampling

I'm realizing my uniform negative sampling might be problematic. Popular items get lost amongst obscure ones, hindering my ability to learn crucial distinctions. I'm now exploring how in-batch negatives, which naturally reflect item popularity, could be a better approach, but their current low count is concerning.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Revising In-Batch Sampling

I've re-examined the in-batch negative sampling implementation and identified a flaw. It appears the priority assignment is treating each unique target identically, regardless of its actual frequency or popularity within the batch. This is not what I intended.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Correcting Sampling Bias

I've discovered a critical flaw: uniform sampling from unique batch targets, then applying frequency-based corrections, actually exacerbates popularity bias. This means popular items are not penalized enough, potentially skewing recommendations. I'm rethinking the entire sampling and correction logic.

Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect top recommended items from baseline Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 -c \"import pandas as pd\ndf = pd.read_parquet('/app/solution/production_validation.parquet')\nprint('Top 20 most frequently recommended items:')\nprint(df['item_id'].value_counts().head(20))\ncatalog = pd.read_parquet('/task/data/candidate_catalog.parquet')\ntop_rec_ids = df['item_id'].value_counts().head(20).index\nprint('Their popularity ranks in catalog:')\nprint(catalog[catalog.item_id.isin(top_rec_ids)][['item_id', 'popularity_rank', 'positive_listens']])\n\"",
  "description": "Inspect top recommended items from baseline"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Top 20 most frequently recommended items:
item_id
6896222    5089
7565403    4970
2055777    4647
8722394    4627
5010168    4572
5134208    4397
3968387    4160
8823268    4157
6414220    4155
8350060    4132
7227266    4091
8729910    4036
3375935    4003
6625048    3992
6006390    3988
6813373    3960
2408923    3865
2705460    3815
1034521    3747
781438     3710
Name: count, dtype: int64
Their popularity ranks in catalog:
      item_id  popularity_rank  positive_listens
74    6006390               75              8970
75    8823268               76              8956
85     781438               86              8410
110   2408923              111              7515
125   6813373              126              7158
127   6625048              128              7133
188   1034521              189              6203
281   3375935              282              5213
305   5134208              306              5028
317   3968387              318              4914
563   8729910              564              3651
633   8722394              634              3464
817   6896222              818              3020
918   7227266              919              2823
1169  2055777             1170              2465
1528  8350060             1529              2115
2061  7565403             2062              1763
2946  5010168             2947              1385
3015  2705460             3016              1361
3206  6414220             3207              1305
Process Group PGID: 1798
</untrusted_context>
38

Analyze ground truth validation targets distribution

+12:24
Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Analyzing Recommendation Diversity

It seems a significant portion of users are receiving very similar top recommendations. I'm now shifting focus to identify what true discovery looks like within the val_listens and val_likes datasets to understand this better.

Tool callrun_shell_commandAnalyze ground truth validation targets distribution Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 -c \"import pandas as pd\nfrom evaluate_public import validation_truth, CandidateSet\ntargets = set(pd.read_parquet('/task/data/target_users.parquet').uid.astype(int))\neligibility = CandidateSet('/task/data/validation_eligible_candidates.npz')\ntruth = validation_truth(eligibility, targets)\nprint('Number of users with validation truth:', len(truth))\ncatalog = pd.read_parquet('/task/data/candidate_catalog.parquet')\nitem_pop = dict(zip(catalog.item_id, catalog.popularity_rank))\ngrades = []\npop_ranks = []\nfor uid, items in truth.items():\n    for item, grade in items.items():\n        grades.append(grade)\n        pop_ranks.append(item_pop.get(item, 99999))\nimport numpy as np\ngrades = np.array(grades)\npop_ranks = np.array(pop_ranks)\nprint('Total true items:', len(grades), 'Grade 3 items:', (grades==3).sum(), 'Grade 1 items:', (grades==1).sum())\nprint('Popularity rank quantiles for ground truth items:')\nprint(np.quantile(pop_ranks, [0, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9, 1.0]))\n\"",
  "description": "Analyze ground truth validation targets distribution"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<string>", line 2, in <module>
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'evaluate_public'
Exit Code: 1
Process Group PGID: 1818
</untrusted_context>
39

Analyze ground truth validation targets with PYTHONPATH set

+12:30
Tool callrun_shell_commandAnalyze ground truth validation targets with PYTHONPATH set Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "PYTHONPATH=/task python3 -c \"import pandas as pd\nfrom evaluate_public import validation_truth, CandidateSet\ntargets = set(pd.read_parquet('/task/data/target_users.parquet').uid.astype(int))\neligibility = CandidateSet('/task/data/validation_eligible_candidates.npz')\ntruth = validation_truth(eligibility, targets)\nprint('Number of users with validation truth:', len(truth))\ncatalog = pd.read_parquet('/task/data/candidate_catalog.parquet')\nitem_pop = dict(zip(catalog.item_id, catalog.popularity_rank))\ngrades = []\npop_ranks = []\nfor uid, items in truth.items():\n    for item, grade in items.items():\n        grades.append(grade)\n        pop_ranks.append(item_pop.get(item, 99999))\nimport numpy as np\ngrades = np.array(grades)\npop_ranks = np.array(pop_ranks)\nprint('Total true items:', len(grades), 'Grade 3 items:', (grades==3).sum(), 'Grade 1 items:', (grades==1).sum())\nprint('Popularity rank quantiles for ground truth items:')\nprint(np.quantile(pop_ranks, [0, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9, 1.0]))\n\"",
  "description": "Analyze ground truth validation targets with PYTHONPATH set"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Number of users with validation truth: 4263
Total true items: 37769 Grade 3 items: 4417 Grade 1 items: 33352
Popularity rank quantiles for ground truth items:
[1.00000e+00 4.28000e+02 1.73300e+03 5.62200e+03 1.33740e+04 2.16802e+04
 3.00000e+04]
Process Group PGID: 1829
</untrusted_context>
40

Inspect item_correction values for popular vs tail items

+13:45
Recorded reasoning summary 47 words

Analyzing Popularity Distributions

I'm observing the popularity distribution for ground truth items. The median rank is 5,622, with the 75th percentile at 13,374 and the 90th at 21,680. This indicates that ground truth items are spread widely across the catalog, not confined to just the top 500.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Investigating Negative Sampling

My focus is now on the training objective and how it selects negatives. I'm dissecting the score_target_microbatches function to understand the logic behind negative example usage and identifying potential limitations within the current sampling strategy.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Examining Loss Components

I'm scrutinizing the loss calculations, specifically the interplay between positive and negative item contributions. My attention is drawn to the corrected_negative_loss function and its precise implementation, as it seems to be a critical differentiator in the overall objective.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Refining Loss Calculations

I'm revisiting the corrected_negative_loss function. It appears I might have been over-weighting uniform negatives; I'm examining how the mean of uniform negative losses is multiplied by config.uniform_negatives. This needs precise correction for accurate loss attribution.

Recorded reasoning summary 70 words

Clarifying Loss Aggregation

I've pinpointed a misunderstanding in how losses are aggregated. Previously, I thought config.uniform_negatives and config.inbatch_negatives were multipliers; they are actually counts used in calculating the weighted average loss across all negatives. The current corrected_negative_loss effectively computes the mean loss over all 32 negatives. The subsequent addition of this mean negative loss to the positive loss, followed by averaging, is what needs critical re-evaluation regarding its gradient implications.

Recorded reasoning summary 51 words

Analyzing Gradient Magnitudes

I'm now examining the gradients for positive and negative items within the loss function. It appears the negative item gradients might be excessively scaled down by a factor of 64, potentially diminishing their impact on learning, and I'm questioning the standard practice for BCE loss with multiple negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 56 words

Reconsidering Loss Functions

I'm questioning if BCE is the optimal objective for retrieval tasks. Standard practice often uses Softmax Cross-Entropy (InfoNCE) or Margin-based losses like BPR. The current approach, with a positive logit averaging only 0.74 and a significant negative logit of -0.62, suggests a potential mismatch between the chosen loss and the desired ranking outcome.

Recorded reasoning summary 36 words

Evaluating Loss Effectiveness

I'm questioning the effectiveness of the current loss function given the low pair accuracy of 75.4% and the average negative logit of -0.62. This suggests a potential mismatch with the retrieval task's goals.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Revising Objective Function

I'm now exploring alternative objective functions beyond BCE, considering InfoNCE and margin-based losses. The current logit values and low pair accuracy suggest a need for a more suitable approach to optimize retrieval performance within the given constraints.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Investigating Negative Selection

I'm delving into the specifics of how negative examples are chosen. My current focus is on the score_target_microbatches function to fully grasp the negative sampling logic and identify any inherent limitations within the existing approach.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Exploring Negative Sampling Logic

I'm examining the distinctions between draw_full_history_filtered_negatives and base.draw_filtered_mixed_negatives within two_tower_model.py. My current focus is on how base.draw_filtered_mixed_negatives uses invalid_negative_mask to identify and filter out duplicates, targets, and known positives from the sampled negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 33 words

Refining Negative Filtering

I'm analyzing the build_known_positive_filter function in train_current_model.py. Specifically, I'm examining how it packs a user's entire public-training positive-item set using bitwise operations to efficiently filter known positives from sampled negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Filtering Known Positives

I'm re-examining build_known_positive_filter and its handling of target_count. It appears I may have misunderstood how it processes sequence items, potentially not including the entire training history due to offsets and how target_count is determined by chronological_target_partition, which itself seems to discard earlier targets.

Recorded reasoning summary 34 words

Revising Positive Filtering

I'm re-examining how known positives are filtered. It appears the history_training_counts are used, but these might exclude earlier targets due to chronological partitioning, and I need to confirm the exact mechanism.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Clarifying Data Slicing

I'm re-examining how sequences are sliced. It appears prepared.sequence_items is indexed from offset up to offset + history_training_counts + 1, which correctly captures items up to the validation split. I need to confirm how target rows within training are handled.

Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect item_correction values for popular vs tail items Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 -c \"import numpy as np, torch\nfrom train_current_model import Config, build_item_correction, load_cache\nconfig = Config()\nprepared = load_cache('/app/solution/validation_cache.npz', 'validation', config)\nfrom train_current_model import chronological_target_partition\npartition = chronological_target_partition(prepared, config.validation_fraction, config.max_train_targets_per_user, config.max_validation_targets_per_user)\ncorr = build_item_correction(prepared, config, partition.window_starts, partition.training_counts)\nprint('corr shape:', corr.shape)\nprint('min:', corr.min().item(), 'max:', corr.max().item(), 'mean:', corr.mean().item(), 'median:', corr.median().item())\nprint('corr for top 10 popular items:', corr[:10].numpy())\nprint('corr for bottom 10 items:', corr[-10:].numpy())\n\"",
  "description": "Inspect item_correction values for popular vs tail items"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<string>", line 2, in <module>
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'train_current_model'
Exit Code: 1
Process Group PGID: 1849
</untrusted_context>
41

Inspect item_correction values with PYTHONPATH set

+13:51
Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect item_correction values with PYTHONPATH set Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "PYTHONPATH=/app/solution python3 -c \"import numpy as np, torch\nfrom train_current_model import Config, build_item_correction, load_cache, chronological_target_partition\nfrom pathlib import Path\nconfig = Config()\nprepared = load_cache(Path('/app/solution/validation_cache.npz'), 'validation', config)\npartition = chronological_target_partition(prepared, config.validation_fraction, config.max_train_targets_per_user, config.max_validation_targets_per_user)\ncorr = build_item_correction(prepared, config, partition.window_starts, partition.training_counts)\nprint('corr shape:', corr.shape)\nprint('min:', corr.min().item(), 'max:', corr.max().item(), 'mean:', corr.mean().item(), 'median:', corr.median().item())\nprint('corr for top 10 popular items:', corr[:10].numpy())\nprint('corr for bottom 10 items:', corr[-10:].numpy())\n\"",
  "description": "Inspect item_correction values with PYTHONPATH set"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: loaded full-sequence cache: tokens=20,056,329 targets=20,047,194
inbatch correction: min=0.250 mean_on_targets=1.001 max=4.000
corr shape: torch.Size([30000])
min: 0.25 max: 4.0 mean: 1.8048696517944336 median: 1.702347755432129
corr for top 10 popular items: [0.25       0.25       0.25       0.25       0.25       0.28220448
 0.25       0.25       0.25927085 0.25      ]
corr for bottom 10 items: [4.        2.4074833 2.5535216 2.1776505 2.0031471 1.9302809 1.8648285
 3.2299778 2.1776505 1.8648285]
Process Group PGID: 1859
</untrusted_context>
42

Check number of unique items encoded with 24 uniform negatives

+15:09
Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Analyzing Loss Function

I'm currently dissecting the corrected_negative_loss function, specifically examining the role of correction and how it modifies the raw softplus output. The goal is to understand its impact on the overall loss calculation.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Investigating Weighting Strategy

I'm discovering a critical flaw: popular items are effectively never penalized when used as in-batch negatives due to a 16-fold downweighting. This allows the model to assign excessively high scores to them without consequence, contradicting the goal of learning accurate representations.

Recorded reasoning summary 54 words

Revising Loss Calculation

I've realized the foundational assumption about ground truth data was incorrect; users haven't exclusively listened to the same limited items. This necessitates a re-evaluation of why the item_correction was implemented, as the original paper's rationale for Softmax cross-entropy bias correction doesn't align with the codebase's use of BCE and uniform sampling.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Identifying Hard Negative Impact

I'm realizing that sampling popular items as negatives, even proportionally, still presents them as the hardest negatives. By downweighting their loss signal, the system inadvertently removes the crucial learning opportunity for distinguishing user preferences within popular items.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Examining Configuration Hardcoding

I'm discovering that crucial training parameters like inbatch_negatives and uniform_negatives aren't exposed via CLI flags but are instead hardcoded within the Config object, limiting flexibility and making it difficult to experiment with different sampling strategies.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Investigating Sampling Logic

I'm currently examining the code responsible for drawing in-batch negatives and suspect a fundamental misunderstanding of how they should be utilized. My current focus is on lines 652-675 of train_current_model.py to pinpoint the exact logic.

Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Refining Negative Sampling

I'm currently evaluating the _full_history_filtered_negatives function. My focus is on the sampling of uniform negatives and the conditional inclusion of in-batch negatives, aiming to ensure a robust strategy for selecting negative examples.

Recorded reasoning summary 34 words

Selecting In-Batch Negatives

I'm re-examining the selection of in-batch negatives. It appears each target is treated independently, drawing a fixed number of negatives from unique_targets rather than considering the overall batch context for sampling.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Correcting Correction Logic

I'm noticing that rejected in-batch items are being reset to a correction of 1.0. This seems counterintuitive, as these were likely popular items that should still retain some special handling rather than being treated as ordinary uniform draws.

Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Adjusting Negative Sample Handling

I'm realizing that when an in-batch negative is invalid, it's currently being replaced by a uniform draw with its correction reset to 1.0. This seems to undermine the intended handling of these specific negative examples.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Analyzing Loss Value

I'm seeing that a single high-scoring negative item, even if only one of many, can disproportionately inflate the total loss. This is because the negative_loss averages across all negatives, masking the severe ranking issue caused by that outlier.

Recorded reasoning summary 47 words

Comparing Loss Functions

I am now comparing the behavior of InfoNCE/Sampled Softmax against Binary Cross-Entropy. InfoNCE's formula directly penalizes large score differences between positives and negatives, driving exponential loss and large gradients when a negative is ranked higher than a positive, unlike the averaged loss in BCE.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Evaluating Loss Strategy

I'm now assessing InfoNCE and Softmax cross-entropy as potential loss functions. My focus is on how their inherent penalty mechanisms differ from Binary Cross-Entropy and whether they align better with learning accurate representations by directly addressing large score discrepancies.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Revising Training Objective

I'm realizing my previous analysis focused too narrowly on sampling, overlooking a fundamental aspect: the objective itself. I need to re-evaluate how negative examples are actually used within the loss calculation, shifting focus from selection to utilization.

Recorded reasoning summary 59 words

Revising Loss Calculation

I'm realizing my initial assessment was too focused on sampling mechanics. The core issue lies in how the loss is calculated. The division by total in corrected_negative_loss effectively reduces the weight of individual negatives, while the absence of temperature scaling in the current BCE setup prevents proper handling of score discrepancies, especially with popular item biases.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Adjusting Similarity Calculation

I'm realizing that the raw dot product is being used for scoring, which, without temperature scaling, results in a limited range for exponential calculations. This significantly impacts how the loss function penalizes incorrect rankings compared to modern two-tower models.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Examining Sampling Proportions

I'm now investigating the mix of uniform versus in-batch negatives used in training. My focus is on the current configuration of 24 uniform negatives alongside 8 in-batch negatives, and how this specific ratio impacts learning.

Recorded reasoning summary 45 words

Revising In-Batch Sampling

I'm realizing the term "in-batch negatives" is being used misleadingly. The current approach samples uniformly from unique targets, unlike true two-tower models where negatives arise from other users' positive items, naturally weighting popular items. This distinction is crucial for accurate representation learning.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Correcting Correction Assumptions

I'm realizing my understanding of the in-batch negative sampling was incomplete. The build_item_correction function erroneously assumed popular items would be sampled more frequently, a premise contradicted by the uniform sampling from unique_targets. This invalidates the raw correction calculation.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Identifying Invalid Negatives

I've discovered that invalid_full_history_negatives marks items as invalid if they appear in known positives, are the target itself, or are duplicates within the negative set. This significantly affects the pool of usable in-batch negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 45 words

Replacing Invalid Negatives

I'm discovering that when an in-batch negative is deemed invalid, it's replaced by a uniform random draw from the entire item pool. This indiscriminate replacement, along with resetting its correction to 1.0, appears to bypass the intended handling of specific negative examples.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Incorporating Dislikes

I'm realizing that explicit dislikes, a powerful negative signal, are currently only used as a user feature and never as actual negative training examples. This oversight means the model is missing a crucial opportunity to learn from strong negative preferences.

Recorded reasoning summary 45 words

Re-evaluating Positive Signals

I'm realizing that all skipped tracks, even those with significant engagement before being abandoned, were entirely discarded as training positives. This fundamentally misinterprets user engagement and likely hinders the model's ability to learn nuanced preferences beyond just 80% completion or organic listens.

Recorded reasoning summary 32 words

Analyzing Target Weighting

I'm realizing that under the default "organic-strong" weighting, explicit likes aren't receiving their intended 3.0 multiplier. This oversight means a significant positive signal isn't being leveraged effectively in training.

Recorded reasoning summary 50 words

Clarifying Target Weighting

I'm realizing my previous assumptions about target weighting were incomplete. While the code mentions "organic-strong" with a 1.0 multiplier for listens, and "discovery-graded" with a 3.0 multiplier for Grade 3 items, it seems the author simply implemented the latter without fully justifying its application beyond its existence.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Refining Objective Logic

I'm now focusing on the training objective's core, specifically how negative examples are incorporated. My priority is understanding the impact of weighting and temperature scaling on the loss calculation, moving beyond solely sampling mechanics.

Recorded reasoning summary 28 words

Analyzing Loss Formula

I am now examining the corrected_negative_loss function, focusing on how the correction tensor interacts with the raw softplus output to influence the final loss calculation.

Recorded reasoning summary 59 words

Revising Loss Calculation

I'm realizing my initial assessment was too focused on sampling mechanics. The core issue lies in how the loss is calculated. The division by total in corrected_negative_loss effectively reduces the weight of individual negatives, while the absence of temperature scaling in the current BCE setup prevents proper handling of score discrepancies, especially with popular item biases.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Reducing Negative Loss Impact

I'm realizing the current loss calculation heavily favors positive items. Each of the 32 negatives carries a weight of approximately 1/64, while the positive item's weight is 0.5. This 32x disparity means the model's push against negatives is incredibly weak, especially in a large catalog.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Comparing Loss Dynamics

I am now analyzing how InfoNCE's gradients differ from BCE. In InfoNCE, the gradients for negatives balance the positive's gradient and are concentrated on the highest-scoring negatives, driving steeper corrections for poorly ranked items, unlike the current averaged and diluted BCE loss signal.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Analyzing Gradient Saturation

I'm realizing that my current Binary Cross-Entropy loss function is severely limiting my ability to correct poorly ranked negatives, capping gradients and requiring hundreds of steps to address even a single catastrophic negative. This is why I'm investigating alternative loss functions like BPR and InfoNCE.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Adjusting for Popularity Bias

I'm realizing the crucial insight that subtracting $\log p_j$ from logits in InfoNCE is a correction for item popularity. This adjustment accounts for the higher sampling frequency of popular items, preventing them from being disproportionately penalized or favored due to their prevalence in the dataset.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Analyzing Correction Logic

I'm discovering that the build_item_correction function calculates a correction tensor based on item counts and probabilities. This correction is then applied within the corrected_negative_loss function, directly modifying the raw softplus output to influence the final loss value.

Recorded reasoning summary 72 words

Analyzing Loss Weighting

I'm realizing that the correction tensor, intended to adjust for item popularity, is being used to weight the softplus output of logits. This means popular items, which receive a low correction (e.g., 0.25), have their loss signal significantly reduced, while rare items with high corrections (e.g., 4.0) have their signal amplified. This is compounded by the uniform sampling of in-batch negatives, which fails to expose popular items more frequently.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Testing Correction Weights

I'm discovering a critical double penalty on training against popular items. They aren't sampled proportionally, and their loss signal is heavily downweighted. I'm testing the impact of setting inbatch_correction_power to 0.0 and sampling in-batch negatives proportionally to targets.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Encoding Unique Items

I'm discovering that the candidate_vectors function encodes only unique items. This means in-batch negatives, already present as positives, cost almost nothing to encode. Uniform negatives, however, add a significant number of new items to the encoding process.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck number of unique items encoded with 24 uniform negatives Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "PYTHONPATH=/app/solution python3 -c \"import torch\nbatch_size = 6000\nuniform = torch.randint(30000, (batch_size, 24))\nunique_uniform = len(torch.unique(uniform))\nprint('Unique items from 24 uniform negatives with batch_size 6000:', unique_uniform)\n\"",
  "description": "Check number of unique items encoded with 24 uniform negatives"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Unique items from 24 uniform negatives with batch_size 6000: 29745
Process Group PGID: 1870
</untrusted_context>
43

Check recent git commits

+15:39
Recorded reasoning summary 30 words

Processing More Items

I've just processed a significant portion of the data. Nearly all 29,745 items from the item tower have been encoded within each batch, which is excellent progress.

Recorded reasoning summary 50 words

Optimizing Item Encodings

I've identified a significant performance bottleneck: the repeated encoding of almost the entire item catalog on the CPU for every batch. I'm exploring the use of in-batch negatives, which could drastically reduce the number of item encodings needed per step. This should significantly speed up training epochs.

Recorded reasoning summary 52 words

Investigating Target Weighting

My focus has shifted to understanding how the training objective selects and utilizes negative examples, specifically exploring the discovery-graded target weighting. I'm diagnosing its limitations and seeking improvements within the existing CPU budget, aiming to enhance the baseline score by analyzing how this strategy impacts item selection and performance.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck recent git commits Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check recent git commits",
  "command": "git log -p -2"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: /usr/bin/bash: line 4: git: command not found
Exit Code: 127
Process Group PGID: 1883
</untrusted_context>
44

Benchmark individual BPTT step components

+15:52
Recorded reasoning summary 31 words

Exploring Validation Configurations

I'm currently investigating how different knobs affect the validation score, prioritizing understanding before making significant changes. I'm also curious about the duration of a cached sequence validation run.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Analyzing Training Bottlenecks

I'm examining the training process, specifically the draw_training_negatives function, to identify performance bottlenecks. My goal is to significantly reduce the time it takes to train a single epoch for faster hypothesis testing during research.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Refining Negative Sampling

I'm delving into draw_full_history_filtered_negatives, observing the steps involving torch.randint, unique target identification, priority assignment, and the iterative process within invalid_full_history_negatives. The creation of candidate_vectors with torch.unique on a large item set and subsequent item encoding are key areas of focus.

Tool callrun_shell_commandBenchmark individual BPTT step components Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Benchmark individual BPTT step components",
  "command": "PYTHONPATH=/app/solution python3 -c \"import time, torch, numpy as np\nfrom train_current_model import Config, load_cache, chronological_target_partition, build_target_weights, build_dense_block, event_sequence, draw_training_negatives, build_item_correction, build_known_positive_filter, score_target_microbatches, model_config\nimport two_tower_model as base\nfrom pathlib import Path\n\nconfig = Config()\nprepared = load_cache(Path('/app/solution/validation_cache.npz'), 'validation', config)\npartition = chronological_target_partition(prepared, config.validation_fraction, config.max_train_targets_per_user, config.max_validation_targets_per_user)\nitem_correction = build_item_correction(prepared, config, partition.window_starts, partition.training_counts)\ntarget_weights = build_target_weights(Path('/task'), 'validation', prepared, partition.history_training_counts, config)\nknown_positive_packed = build_known_positive_filter(prepared, partition.history_training_counts)\n\nmodel = base.SequentialTwoTower(prepared.item_features, model_config(config))\ndevice = torch.device('cpu')\ngenerator = torch.Generator(device='cpu').manual_seed(29)\n\ntrain_users = np.flatnonzero(partition.training_counts > 0)\nusers = train_users[:64]\ngroup_counts = partition.training_counts[users]\nhidden = torch.zeros(1, len(users), config.embedding_dim)\n\nt0 = time.monotonic()\nblock = build_dense_block(prepared, target_weights, users, partition.window_starts[users], group_counts, np.zeros(len(users), dtype=np.int64), 0, 100, config)\nt_block = time.monotonic() - t0\n\nt0 = time.monotonic()\nseq_out, _ = event_sequence(model, torch.from_numpy(block[0].astype(np.int64)), torch.from_numpy(block[1].astype(np.float32)), hidden)\nt_gru = time.monotonic() - t0\n\nflat_scored = block[5].reshape(-1)\npositive_items = torch.from_numpy(block[4].reshape(-1)[flat_scored].astype(np.int64))\nknown_history = torch.from_numpy(block[6].reshape(-1, config.bptt_steps)[flat_scored].astype(np.int64))\nliked_items = torch.from_numpy(prepared.liked_states[block[3].reshape(-1)[flat_scored]].astype(np.int64))\nflat_user_rows = np.broadcast_to(users[:, None], block[5].shape).reshape(-1)[flat_scored]\n\nt0 = time.monotonic()\nnegs, neg_weights = draw_training_negatives(positive_items, known_history, liked_items, flat_user_rows, known_positive_packed, prepared, config, item_correction, generator, device)\nt_neg_draw = time.monotonic() - t0\n\nsequence_vectors = seq_out.reshape(-1, config.embedding_dim)[torch.from_numpy(flat_scored)]\nflat_states = block[3].reshape(-1)[flat_scored]\n\nt0 = time.monotonic()\nstats, seq_grad = score_target_microbatches(model, prepared, config, sequence_vectors, flat_states, block[2].reshape(-1, 4)[flat_scored].astype(np.float32), positive_items, negs, neg_weights, block[8].reshape(-1)[flat_scored], device, backward=True)\nt_score_bwd = time.monotonic() - t0\n\nprint(f'Timing per BPTT block (batch of 64 users, ~{len(positive_items)} targets):')\nprint(f'  dense block build: {t_block*1000:.1f} ms')\nprint(f'  GRU forward:      {t_gru*1000:.1f} ms')\nprint(f'  negatives draw:   {t_neg_draw*1000:.1f} ms')\nprint(f'  score + backward: {t_score_bwd*1000:.1f} ms')\n\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: loaded full-sequence cache: tokens=20,056,329 targets=20,047,194
inbatch correction: min=0.250 mean_on_targets=1.001 max=4.000
target weighting=organic-strong min=0.250 mean=0.575 max=1.000
full-history false-negative filter: users=9,135 unique_user_items=5,524,275 bytes=34,256,250
Timing per BPTT block (batch of 64 users, ~5644 targets):
  dense block build: 2.8 ms
  GRU forward:      44.2 ms
  negatives draw:   235.1 ms
  score + backward: 796.5 ms
Process Group PGID: 1886
</untrusted_context>
45

Benchmark candidate_vectors encoding time

+16:03
Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Analyzing Performance Bottlenecks

I'm currently investigating performance, finding that "negatives draw" and "score + backward" are the main culprits, consuming significant time per block. This is significantly impacting overall processing speed, far exceeding the GRU's forward pass.

Tool callrun_shell_commandBenchmark candidate_vectors encoding time Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Benchmark candidate_vectors encoding time",
  "command": "PYTHONPATH=/app/solution python3 -c \"import time, torch\nfrom train_current_model import candidate_vectors, model_config, Config, load_cache\nimport two_tower_model as base\nfrom pathlib import Path\n\nconfig = Config()\nprepared = load_cache(Path('/app/solution/validation_cache.npz'), 'validation', config)\nmodel = base.SequentialTwoTower(prepared.item_features, model_config(config))\n\npositives = torch.randint(30000, (5644,))\nnegatives = torch.randint(30000, (5644, 32))\n\nt0 = time.monotonic()\npv, nv = candidate_vectors(model, positives, negatives)\nt_cand = time.monotonic() - t0\nprint(f'candidate_vectors took: {t_cand*1000:.1f} ms')\n\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: loaded full-sequence cache: tokens=20,056,329 targets=20,047,194
candidate_vectors took: 334.2 ms
Process Group PGID: 1900
</untrusted_context>
46

update_topic command

+16:22
Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Analyzing Encoding Time

I'm observing that the candidate vector encoding, both forward and backward passes, is consuming over 600ms of the total 796ms. This significant chunk of processing time requires immediate attention. I need to assess if these encoding steps are the primary bottleneck.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Investigating Negative Sampling

I'm re-reading the prompt's core directives, specifically zeroing in on the selection and utilization of negative examples within the training objective. My immediate focus is to diagnose and then enhance the existing negative-sampling strategy, all while respecting the CPU constraints and serving requirements.

Recorded reasoning summary 60 words

Refining Negative Sampling

I'm realizing my current negative sampling isn't ideal. Uniform sampling over the entire catalog heavily favors unpopular items. In-batch negatives aren't weighted by frequency, making popular items just as likely to be chosen as rare ones. The baseline also completely ignores explicit dislikes and low-completion listens, which are valuable signals. I need to implement more sophisticated strategies.

Recorded reasoning summary 60 words

Addressing Popularity Bias

I'm realizing my current negative sampling isn't effective. Uniform sampling over the entire catalog heavily favors unpopular items. In-batch negatives aren't weighted by frequency, making popular items just as likely to be chosen as rare ones. The baseline also completely ignores explicit dislikes and low-completion listens, which are valuable signals. I need to implement more sophisticated strategies.

Recorded reasoning summary 52 words

Correcting Loss Calculations

I've discovered a significant issue in how popular items are treated as negatives. The build_item_correction function appears to incorrectly downweight the loss for popular in-batch negatives, effectively telling the model to ignore them. This is causing a strong bias towards recommending the same few popular items to all users.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Revising Loss Function

I'm realizing my current loss calculation's averaging of negatives and its reliance on BCE are suboptimal. This is diminishing the impact of individual negatives and not directly encouraging the positive to outperform all negatives. I need to switch to a more suitable loss like InfoNCE.

Tool callupdate_topicTool call Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "summary": "Baseline evaluation yielded quality_ndcg@10 of 0.02128. Analysis of negative sampling identified key limitations: (1) item_correction severely downweights popular in-batch negatives (0.25x vs 4.0x) while sampling from unique_targets uniformly, causing the model to over-recommend popular items to >60% of users; (2) uniform negatives (24/32) are overwhelmingly tail items, missing hard negatives and costing huge CPU overhead; (3) the BCE objective averages 32 negative losses into 1, giving each negative only 1/64 gradient weight and failing to penalize high-scoring negatives; (4) explicit dislikes are ignored as negatives. We are now testing targeted improvements to negative selection and loss.",
  "title": "Diagnosing and Experimenting with Negative Sampling and Loss",
  "strategic_intent": "Formulate and test specific improvements to the negative sampling strategy and training objective."
}

Tool response

Current topic: "Diagnosing and Experimenting with Negative Sampling and Loss"
Topic summary: Baseline evaluation yielded quality_ndcg@10 of 0.02128. Analysis of negative sampling identified key limitations: (1) item_correction severely downweights popular in-batch negatives (0.25x vs 4.0x) while sampling from unique_targets uniformly, causing the model to over-recommend popular items to >60% of users; (2) uniform negatives (24/32) are overwhelmingly tail items, missing hard negatives and costing huge CPU overhead; (3) the BCE objective averages 32 negative losses into 1, giving each negative only 1/64 gradient weight and failing to penalize high-scoring negatives; (4) explicit dislikes are ignored as negatives. We are now testing targeted improvements to negative selection and loss.

Strategic Intent: Formulate and test specific improvements to the negative sampling strategy and training objective.
47

Verify training from cached data and measure exact runtime

+16:44
Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Testing Caching Speed

I'm now focusing on optimizing execution times. My current thought is to run a quick experiment to measure the duration of a validation stage directly from the cached file. This will provide a baseline for performance.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Investigating Negative Sampling

My thoughts are now honing in on the prompt's explicit directive: to scrutinize and enhance the negative sampling strategy. I'm prioritizing an analysis of how the training objective selects and utilizes these negatives, aiming to pinpoint current limitations within a fixed CPU budget.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Analyzing Negative Sampling Logic

I'm now deeply examining the corrected_negative_loss function. My focus is on how negative examples are selected and weighted, particularly under a fixed CPU budget, and I'm exploring the impact of not downweighting weights.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Exploring Loss Functions

I am now considering alternative loss functions, specifically InfoNCE (Sampled Softmax). I'm comparing its formulation and potential gradient behavior against Binary Cross-Entropy, and exploring the impact of the temperature parameter $\tau$ on the logits.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Refining Negative Selection

I'm now questioning the current in-batch negative selection mechanism. It appears to sample from unique_targets rather than all other items in the batch, which deviates from standard practice. I need to investigate the rationale and implications of this approach.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Revising Negative Sampling

I'm now rethinking the negative sampling strategy in BPTT. It seems sampling uniformly from unique_targets might not be optimal. I'm exploring alternatives like sampling proportional to popularity or increasing the number of in-batch negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Understanding Popularity Bias

I'm now realizing that sampling popular items as negatives is crucial for retrieval tasks to combat popularity bias. The literature emphasizes that without hard negatives, models default to recommending universally popular items, mirroring our baseline's observed behavior.

Recorded reasoning summary 57 words

Investigating Popularity Bias

I'm now realizing that the baseline's extreme popularity bias stems from how negatives are selected and weighted. The current setup heavily downweights popular items, effectively shielding them from negative feedback and reinforcing their dominance. I'm planning experiments to test the impact of removing this downweighting, increasing in-batch negatives, and sampling negatives proportionally to popularity.

Tool callrun_shell_commandVerify training from cached data and measure exact runtime Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --output /app/solution/baseline_repro.parquet \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz",
  "description": "Verify training from cached data and measure exact runtime"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: loaded full-sequence cache: tokens=20,056,329 targets=20,047,194
chronological BCE window: train=1,052,953 validation=130,103 selected=1,183,056 discarded_old_targets=18,864,138 all=20,047,194
inbatch correction: min=0.250 mean_on_targets=1.001 max=4.000
target weighting=organic-strong min=0.250 mean=0.575 max=1.000
full-history false-negative filter: users=9,135 unique_user_items=5,524,275 bytes=34,256,250
epoch=1/1 batches=250 targets=987,417 batch_bce=0.547529 running_bce=0.541614 elapsed=197.4s
epoch=1/1 train_loss=0.53984 validation_loss=0.49664 pair_accuracy=0.755 train_targets=1,052,953 validation_targets=130,103 train_seconds=210.7 validation_seconds=15.4
restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch=1 loss=0.496636
ranked users=1,024/8,456
ranked users=2,048/8,456
ranked users=3,072/8,456
ranked users=4,096/8,456
ranked users=5,120/8,456
ranked users=6,144/8,456
ranked users=7,168/8,456
ranked users=8,192/8,456
ranked users=8,456/8,456
{
  "baseline": "yambda-windowed-sequence-two-tower-base",
  "stage": "validation",
  "output": "/app/solution/baseline_repro.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 311.079,
  "public_inputs_only": true,
  "architecture": {
    "family": "pure-windowed-sequence-two-tower",
    "sequence_training": "every-adjacent-target-within-recent-chronological-window",
    "sequence_encoder": "one-layer-GRU-dense-timestep-loss",
    "bptt_hidden_state": "carried-and-detached",
    "model_selection": "chronological-validation-BCE-early-stopping",
    "loss_execution": "gradient-accumulated-microbatches",
    "user_id_embedding": false,
    "user_mlp": "582-512-256-192",
    "item_mlp": "196-512-256-192",
    "normalization": "none",
    "score": "raw-dot-product",
    "objective": "sample-weighted-BCE-at-every-timestep",
    "negative_sampling": "24-uniform-plus-8-propensity-corrected-inbatch",
    "false_negative_filter": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "organic-strong"
  },
  "config": {
    "bptt_steps": 100,
    "user_batch_size": 64,
    "embedding_dim": 192,
    "hidden_dim": 192,
    "user_hidden_1": 512,
    "user_hidden_2": 256,
    "item_hidden_1": 512,
    "item_hidden_2": 256,
    "dropout": 0.05,
    "epochs": 1,
    "learning_rate": 0.001,
    "weight_decay": 1e-05,
    "gradient_clip": 2.0,
    "loss_microbatch_size": 65536,
    "uniform_negatives": 24,
    "inbatch_negatives": 8,
    "inbatch_correction_power": 0.5,
    "inbatch_correction_min": 0.25,
    "inbatch_correction_max": 4.0,
    "negative_filter_scope": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "organic-strong",
    "ordinary_target_weight": 0.25,
    "organic_strong_target_weight": 1.0,
    "organic_like_target_weight": 3.0,
    "discovery_horizon_days": 7,
    "validation_fraction": 0.1,
    "max_train_targets_per_user": 128,
    "max_validation_targets_per_user": 16,
    "early_stopping_patience": 1,
    "early_stopping_min_delta": 0.0001,
    "seed": 29
  },
  "sequence_tokens": 20056329,
  "all_next_item_targets": 20047194,
  "selected_training_targets": 1052953,
  "selected_validation_targets": 130103,
  "discarded_old_targets": 18864138,
  "training_history": [
    {
      "epoch": 1.0,
      "loss": 0.5398380468700822,
      "positive_logit": 0.742779956283339,
      "negative_logit": -0.6222247051055542,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.7547733612041563,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 632551.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 210.7108823000001,
      "validation_loss": 0.4966362183089643,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 78769.25,
      "validation_seconds": 15.389231074999998
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.603016972541809,
    "query_norm_std": 0.7697497606277466,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.7570278644561768,
    "item_norm_std": 0.8279485702514648
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
Process Group PGID: 1914
</untrusted_context>
48

Evaluate baseline reproduction ranking

+22:03
Tool callrun_shell_commandEvaluate baseline reproduction ranking Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/baseline_repro.parquet",
  "description": "Evaluate baseline reproduction ranking"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: {
  "model": "/app/solution/baseline_repro.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.02128,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 1939
</untrusted_context>
49

Test target-weighting discovery-graded

+22:11
Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Testing Weighting Strategies

My current focus is on systematically testing our hypotheses, starting with an investigation into the --target-weighting discovery-graded parameter. I'm examining its implementation within train_current_model.py to understand its exact behavior and potential impact.

Tool callrun_shell_commandTest target-weighting discovery-graded Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --output /app/solution/exp1_discovery_graded.parquet \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --target-weighting discovery-graded && python /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/exp1_discovery_graded.parquet",
  "description": "Test target-weighting discovery-graded"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: loaded full-sequence cache: tokens=20,056,329 targets=20,047,194
chronological BCE window: train=1,052,953 validation=130,103 selected=1,183,056 discarded_old_targets=18,864,138 all=20,047,194
inbatch correction: min=0.250 mean_on_targets=1.001 max=4.000
loaded organic-like outcomes: rows=301,527 users=7,526
grade-3 first-encounter targets=46,417 horizon_days=7
target weighting=discovery-graded min=0.250 mean=0.310 max=3.000
full-history false-negative filter: users=9,135 unique_user_items=5,524,275 bytes=34,256,250
epoch=1/1 batches=250 targets=987,417 batch_bce=0.551810 running_bce=0.544138 elapsed=196.6s
epoch=1/1 train_loss=0.54212 validation_loss=0.50483 pair_accuracy=0.760 train_targets=1,052,953 validation_targets=130,103 train_seconds=209.8 validation_seconds=15.4
restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch=1 loss=0.504831
ranked users=1,024/8,456
ranked users=2,048/8,456
ranked users=3,072/8,456
ranked users=4,096/8,456
ranked users=5,120/8,456
ranked users=6,144/8,456
ranked users=7,168/8,456
ranked users=8,192/8,456
ranked users=8,456/8,456
{
  "baseline": "yambda-windowed-sequence-two-tower-base",
  "stage": "validation",
  "output": "/app/solution/exp1_discovery_graded.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 315.063,
  "public_inputs_only": true,
  "architecture": {
    "family": "pure-windowed-sequence-two-tower",
    "sequence_training": "every-adjacent-target-within-recent-chronological-window",
    "sequence_encoder": "one-layer-GRU-dense-timestep-loss",
    "bptt_hidden_state": "carried-and-detached",
    "model_selection": "chronological-validation-BCE-early-stopping",
    "loss_execution": "gradient-accumulated-microbatches",
    "user_id_embedding": false,
    "user_mlp": "582-512-256-192",
    "item_mlp": "196-512-256-192",
    "normalization": "none",
    "score": "raw-dot-product",
    "objective": "sample-weighted-BCE-at-every-timestep",
    "negative_sampling": "24-uniform-plus-8-propensity-corrected-inbatch",
    "false_negative_filter": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "discovery-graded"
  },
  "config": {
    "bptt_steps": 100,
    "user_batch_size": 64,
    "embedding_dim": 192,
    "hidden_dim": 192,
    "user_hidden_1": 512,
    "user_hidden_2": 256,
    "item_hidden_1": 512,
    "item_hidden_2": 256,
    "dropout": 0.05,
    "epochs": 1,
    "learning_rate": 0.001,
    "weight_decay": 1e-05,
    "gradient_clip": 2.0,
    "loss_microbatch_size": 65536,
    "uniform_negatives": 24,
    "inbatch_negatives": 8,
    "inbatch_correction_power": 0.5,
    "inbatch_correction_min": 0.25,
    "inbatch_correction_max": 4.0,
    "negative_filter_scope": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "discovery-graded",
    "ordinary_target_weight": 0.25,
    "organic_strong_target_weight": 1.0,
    "organic_like_target_weight": 3.0,
    "discovery_horizon_days": 7,
    "validation_fraction": 0.1,
    "max_train_targets_per_user": 128,
    "max_validation_targets_per_user": 16,
    "early_stopping_patience": 1,
    "early_stopping_min_delta": 0.0001,
    "seed": 29
  },
  "sequence_tokens": 20056329,
  "all_next_item_targets": 20047194,
  "selected_training_targets": 1052953,
  "selected_validation_targets": 130103,
  "discarded_old_targets": 18864138,
  "training_history": [
    {
      "epoch": 1.0,
      "loss": 0.5421154219032777,
      "positive_logit": 0.7774311394458894,
      "negative_logit": -0.6407561916408621,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.7602795720701684,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 348780.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 209.7952582150001,
      "validation_loss": 0.5048305763960504,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 42129.5,
      "validation_seconds": 15.412744868999653
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.7521849870681763,
    "query_norm_std": 0.8638167381286621,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.8543914556503296,
    "item_norm_std": 0.8459439277648926
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
{
  "model": "/app/solution/exp1_discovery_graded.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.023522,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 1959
</untrusted_context>
50

read_file train_current_model.py

+27:41
Recorded reasoning summary 34 words

Improving Quality Score

My analysis shows a significant 10.5% uplift in quality_ndcg@10, reaching 0.023522, directly attributed to the discovery-graded target weighting. My next steps involve evaluating negative sampling strategies and refining the training objective.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "start_line": 1930,
  "end_line": 1990,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1930-1990 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 1991.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    parser.add_argument("--device", choices=("cpu", "mps"), default="cpu")
    parser.add_argument("--threads", type=int, default=8)
    parser.add_argument("--bptt-steps", type=int, default=Config.bptt_steps)
    parser.add_argument(
        "--user-batch-size", type=int, default=Config.user_batch_size
    )
    parser.add_argument("--epochs", type=int, default=Config.epochs)
    parser.add_argument("--learning-rate", type=float, default=Config.learning_rate)
    parser.add_argument(
        "--loss-microbatch-size",
        type=int,
        default=Config.loss_microbatch_size,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--negative-filter-scope",
        choices=("full-training-history", "last-100"),
        default=Config.negative_filter_scope,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--target-weighting",
        choices=("discovery-graded", "organic-strong", "uniform"),
        default=Config.target_weighting,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--ordinary-target-weight",
        type=float,
        default=Config.ordinary_target_weight,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--organic-strong-target-weight",
        type=float,
        default=Config.organic_strong_target_weight,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--organic-like-target-weight",
        type=float,
        default=Config.organic_like_target_weight,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--discovery-horizon-days",
        type=int,
        default=Config.discovery_horizon_days,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--validation-fraction",
        type=float,
        default=Config.validation_fraction,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--max-train-targets-per-user",
        type=int,
        default=Config.max_train_targets_per_user,
        help="retain this many recent pre-validation targets per user; 0 is uncapped",
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--max-validation-targets-per-user",
        type=int,
        default=Config.max_validation_targets_per_user,
        help="retain this many final validation targets per user; 0 is uncapped",
    )
    parser.add_argument(
51

read_file train_current_model.py

+27:43
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 2050,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 1970
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1970-2050 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 2051.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
        type=int,
        default=Config.discovery_horizon_days,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--validation-fraction",
        type=float,
        default=Config.validation_fraction,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--max-train-targets-per-user",
        type=int,
        default=Config.max_train_targets_per_user,
        help="retain this many recent pre-validation targets per user; 0 is uncapped",
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--max-validation-targets-per-user",
        type=int,
        default=Config.max_validation_targets_per_user,
        help="retain this many final validation targets per user; 0 is uncapped",
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--early-stopping-patience",
        type=int,
        default=Config.early_stopping_patience,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--early-stopping-min-delta",
        type=float,
        default=Config.early_stopping_min_delta,
    )
    parser.add_argument("--checkpoint-dir", type=Path)
    parser.add_argument("--resume-checkpoint", type=Path)
    parser.add_argument("--seed", type=int, default=Config.seed)
    parser.add_argument("--ranking-batch-size", type=int, default=64)
    parser.add_argument("--prepare-only", action="store_true")
    args = parser.parse_args()

    if args.threads < 1 or args.bptt_steps < 2 or args.user_batch_size < 1:
        parser.error("threads, BPTT steps, and user batch size must be positive")
    if (
        args.epochs < 1
        or args.learning_rate <= 0
        or args.loss_microbatch_size < 1
        or args.early_stopping_patience < 1
        or args.early_stopping_min_delta < 0
        or args.ordinary_target_weight <= 0
        or args.organic_strong_target_weight <= 0
        or args.organic_like_target_weight <= 0
        or args.discovery_horizon_days < 1
        or args.max_train_targets_per_user < 0
        or args.max_validation_targets_per_user < 0
    ):
        parser.error("training counts, learning rate, and patience are invalid")
    if not 0.0 < args.validation_fraction < 1.0:
        parser.error("validation fraction must be strictly between zero and one")
    public = args.public_dir.resolve()
    if not (public / "data" / "candidate_catalog.parquet").is_file():
        parser.error(f"public task data not found under {public}")
    config = Config(
        bptt_steps=args.bptt_steps,
        user_batch_size=args.user_batch_size,
        epochs=args.epochs,
        learning_rate=args.learning_rate,
        loss_microbatch_size=args.loss_microbatch_size,
        negative_filter_scope=args.negative_filter_scope,
        target_weighting=args.target_weighting,
        ordinary_target_weight=args.ordinary_target_weight,
        organic_strong_target_weight=args.organic_strong_target_weight,
        organic_like_target_weight=args.organic_like_target_weight,
        discovery_horizon_days=args.discovery_horizon_days,
        validation_fraction=args.validation_fraction,
        max_train_targets_per_user=args.max_train_targets_per_user,
        max_validation_targets_per_user=args.max_validation_targets_per_user,
        early_stopping_patience=args.early_stopping_patience,
        early_stopping_min_delta=args.early_stopping_min_delta,
        seed=args.seed,
    )
    torch.set_num_threads(args.threads)
    torch.set_num_interop_threads(1)
    seed_everything(config.seed)
    device = torch.device(args.device)
52

read_file train_current_model.py

+27:59
Recorded reasoning summary 34 words

Refining Training Parameters

I'm focusing on enhancing train_current_model.py by integrating new arguments for --uniform-negatives, --inbatch-negatives, and --inbatch-correction-power. This will significantly streamline and accelerate experimental iterations. I'm also reviewing the replace functionality within the script.

Recorded reasoning summary 54 words

Exploring Loss Function Variations

I'm currently investigating how to incorporate multiple loss functions and negative sampling strategies. My focus is on understanding the implications of switching between InfoNCE and BCE, particularly in how the logits are structured and how the target indices would need to be adjusted. This exploration aims to increase model flexibility.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Investigating Sampling Strategies

I'm diving deeper into the nuances of in-batch negative sampling. Specifically, I'm examining how different approaches to sampling bias correction, like subtracting log probabilities from logits versus applying a scaling factor to the loss, impact model performance. I plan to implement direct comparisons in Python.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Revising Sampling Logic

I'm re-examining the draw_full_history_filtered_negatives function, particularly lines 650-685 in train_current_model.py. My current focus is on understanding the logic for corrected_count and how it influences the sampling of in-batch negatives, aiming for more robust strategies.

Recorded reasoning summary 51 words

Adjusting Negative Sampling

I'm refining the in-batch negative sampling logic. I've noticed the use of masked_fill_ with -1.0 to exclude the user's positive target from negative sampling, which is correct. However, I am questioning why unique_targets is sampled from in this step and will investigate further to ensure optimal negative selection.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Analyzing Sampling Bias

I'm realizing that using torch.unique on targets before sampling in-batch negatives removes the crucial popularity distribution. This means popular items aren't sampled as negatives more often, defeating a key purpose of this strategy. I need to address this bias.

Recorded reasoning summary 55 words

Correcting Sampling Bias

I've identified a critical flaw: using torch.unique on targets before sampling in-batch negatives eliminates the popularity distribution. This means popular items aren't sampled as negatives proportionally. I'm now exploring sampling random indices from the batch's targets to preserve this distribution and ensure popular items are appropriately penalized, even after filtering invalid negatives.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "end_line": 65,
  "start_line": 35
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 35-65 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 66.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---


CACHE_VERSION = 2


@dataclass(frozen=True)
class Config:
    bptt_steps: int = 100
    user_batch_size: int = 64
    embedding_dim: int = 192
    hidden_dim: int = 192
    user_hidden_1: int = 512
    user_hidden_2: int = 256
    item_hidden_1: int = 512
    item_hidden_2: int = 256
    dropout: float = 0.05
    epochs: int = 1
    learning_rate: float = 1.0e-3
    weight_decay: float = 1.0e-5
    gradient_clip: float = 2.0
    loss_microbatch_size: int = 65_536
    uniform_negatives: int = 24
    inbatch_negatives: int = 8
    inbatch_correction_power: float = 0.5
    inbatch_correction_min: float = 0.25
    inbatch_correction_max: float = 4.0
    negative_filter_scope: str = "full-training-history"
    target_weighting: str = "organic-strong"
    ordinary_target_weight: float = 0.25
    organic_strong_target_weight: float = 1.0
    organic_like_target_weight: float = 3.0
53

read_file train_current_model.py

+28:10
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 720,
  "start_line": 650,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 650-720 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 721.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    )
    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long)
    corrected_count = 0
    if config.inbatch_negatives:
        unique_targets = torch.unique(targets.detach().cpu())
        corrected_count = min(
            config.inbatch_negatives, max(len(unique_targets) - 1, 0)
        )
        if corrected_count:
            priorities = torch.rand(
                (batch_size, len(unique_targets)), generator=generator
            )
            priorities.masked_fill_(
                unique_targets[None, :].eq(
                    torch.from_numpy(targets_cpu)[:, None]
                ),
                -1.0,
            )
            columns = torch.topk(
                priorities, k=corrected_count, dim=1
            ).indices
            inbatch = unique_targets[columns]
        if corrected_count < config.inbatch_negatives:
            filler = torch.randint(
                n_items,
                (batch_size, config.inbatch_negatives - corrected_count),
                generator=generator,
                device="cpu",
            )
            inbatch = torch.cat([inbatch, filler], dim=1)

    negatives = torch.cat([uniform, inbatch], dim=1).numpy()
    correction = np.ones_like(negatives, dtype=np.float32)
    if corrected_count:
        correction[
            :, config.uniform_negatives : config.uniform_negatives + corrected_count
        ] = item_correction[inbatch[:, :corrected_count]].numpy()
    for _ in range(32):
        invalid = invalid_full_history_negatives(
            negatives,
            targets_cpu,
            user_rows,
            known_positive_packed,
            liked_cpu,
        )
        if not np.any(invalid):
            return (
                torch.from_numpy(negatives).to(device),
                torch.from_numpy(correction).to(device),
            )
        replacements = torch.randint(
            n_items,
            (int(invalid.sum()),),
            generator=generator,
            device="cpu",
        ).numpy()
        negatives[invalid] = replacements
        # Rejected in-batch items become ordinary uniform draws.
        correction[invalid] = 1.0
    invalid = invalid_full_history_negatives(
        negatives,
        targets_cpu,
        user_rows,
        known_positive_packed,
        liked_cpu,
    )
    if np.any(invalid):
        raise RuntimeError("full-history negative resampling failed")
    return (
        torch.from_numpy(negatives).to(device),
        torch.from_numpy(correction).to(device),
54

Benchmark old vs new in-batch sampling speed

+28:25
Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Refining Negative Sample Handling

I'm currently zeroing in on how we're managing negative samples, specifically within lines 698-701. My focus is on optimizing the correction array's application to ensure accurate adjustments based on corrected_count and the config.uniform_negatives boundary.

Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Adjusting Loss Calculations

I'm now examining the corrected_negative_loss function, paying close attention to how correction and config parameters influence the raw loss. The softplus output and the conditional application of uniform versus in-batch negatives are key areas of focus.

Recorded reasoning summary 28 words

Implementing Negative Sample Strategies

I'm implementing the CLI options for training negative sample strategies in train_current_model.py. My focus is on integrating the full-training-history filter and testing various configurations.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Configuring Negative Sampling

I'm now defining the CLI arguments related to negative sample configurations in parse_args, including options for uniform and in-batch negatives, correction parameters, loss types, and temperature. This step is crucial for enabling flexible experimentation with different sampling strategies.

Recorded reasoning summary 54 words

Analyzing Loss Functions

I'm currently analyzing the infonce loss function, specifically how positive and negative logits are concatenated and the target indexing. I'm also investigating the calculation for pair accuracy and the statistics collected for positive and negative logits, noting their identical nature. Additionally, I'm beginning to examine the Bayesian Personalized Ranking (BPR) loss.

Recorded reasoning summary 67 words

Refining Loss Calculations

I'm currently refining the loss calculations, specifically how selected_weights are applied to sample_loss. I've also been examining the corrected_negative_loss function within BCE, noting the use of softplus for positive and negative logits, and how selected_weights impact the summed loss. My focus has also shifted to how in-batch negatives are sampled, with a detailed look at draw_full_history_filtered_negatives and the logic for corrected_count and priority assignment.

Recorded reasoning summary 74 words

Simplifying In-Batch Negative Sampling

I've identified a much simpler and faster approach for in-batch negative sampling. Instead of complex priority calculations, I can directly sample indices from targets_cpu. This leverages the natural distribution of targets within the batch, effectively increasing the likelihood of sampling popular items as negatives. The existing invalid filtering mechanism will handle cases where a sampled negative is the same as the target or already in history, ensuring robustness and efficiency.

Tool callrun_shell_commandBenchmark old vs new in-batch sampling speed Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 -c \"import time, torch\nbatch_size = 5600\nunique_targets = torch.randint(30000, (1500,))\ntargets_cpu = torch.randint(30000, (5600,))\nk = 8\n\n# Old way:\nt0 = time.monotonic()\npriorities = torch.rand((batch_size, len(unique_targets)))\npriorities.masked_fill_(unique_targets[None, :].eq(targets_cpu[:, None]), -1.0)\ncolumns = torch.topk(priorities, k=k, dim=1).indices\ninbatch1 = unique_targets[columns]\nt_old = time.monotonic() - t0\n\n# Direct sampling way:\nt0 = time.monotonic()\nidx = torch.randint(0, batch_size, (batch_size, k))\ninbatch2 = targets_cpu[idx]\nt_new = time.monotonic() - t0\n\nprint(f'Old way: {t_old*1000:.1f} ms')\nprint(f'New way: {t_new*1000:.1f} ms ({t_old/t_new:.1f}x faster!)')\n\"",
  "description": "Benchmark old vs new in-batch sampling speed"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Old way: 53.7 ms
New way: 0.2 ms (218.0x faster!)
Process Group PGID: 2008
</untrusted_context>
55

read_file train_current_model.py

+28:34
Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Optimizing BPTT Speed

I've achieved a significant speedup in BPTT, reducing each step from 53.7 ms to a mere 0.2 ms. This translates to a 14-second saving over 266 steps without any memory spikes. I'm now investigating drawing performance from targets_cpu.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 70,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 35
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 35-70 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 71.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---


CACHE_VERSION = 2


@dataclass(frozen=True)
class Config:
    bptt_steps: int = 100
    user_batch_size: int = 64
    embedding_dim: int = 192
    hidden_dim: int = 192
    user_hidden_1: int = 512
    user_hidden_2: int = 256
    item_hidden_1: int = 512
    item_hidden_2: int = 256
    dropout: float = 0.05
    epochs: int = 1
    learning_rate: float = 1.0e-3
    weight_decay: float = 1.0e-5
    gradient_clip: float = 2.0
    loss_microbatch_size: int = 65_536
    uniform_negatives: int = 24
    inbatch_negatives: int = 8
    inbatch_correction_power: float = 0.5
    inbatch_correction_min: float = 0.25
    inbatch_correction_max: float = 4.0
    negative_filter_scope: str = "full-training-history"
    target_weighting: str = "organic-strong"
    ordinary_target_weight: float = 0.25
    organic_strong_target_weight: float = 1.0
    organic_like_target_weight: float = 3.0
    discovery_horizon_days: int = 7
    validation_fraction: float = 0.10
    max_train_targets_per_user: int = 128
    max_validation_targets_per_user: int = 16
    early_stopping_patience: int = 1
56

read_file train_current_model.py

+28:36
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "end_line": 865,
  "start_line": 845
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 845-865 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 866.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
def corrected_negative_loss(
    logits: torch.Tensor,
    correction: torch.Tensor,
    config: Config,
) -> torch.Tensor:
    raw = F.softplus(logits)
    total = config.uniform_negatives + config.inbatch_negatives
    result = torch.zeros(len(logits), device=logits.device)
    if config.uniform_negatives:
        result += config.uniform_negatives * raw[
            :, : config.uniform_negatives
        ].mean(dim=1)
    if config.inbatch_negatives:
        selected = slice(config.uniform_negatives, total)
        weights = correction[:, selected]
        result += config.inbatch_negatives * (
            (raw[:, selected] * weights).sum(dim=1)
            / weights.sum(dim=1).clamp_min(1.0e-6)
        )
    return result / total
57

read_file train_current_model.py

+28:40
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 1190,
  "start_line": 1160,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1160-1190 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 1191.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
            torch.from_numpy(numeric).to(device),
        )
        positive_vectors, negative_vectors = candidate_vectors(
            model,
            positive_items[begin:end],
            negatives[begin:end],
        )
        positive_logits = (query_vectors * positive_vectors).sum(dim=1)
        negative_logits = torch.einsum(
            "bd,bkd->bk", query_vectors, negative_vectors
        )
        positive_loss = F.softplus(-positive_logits)
        negative_loss = corrected_negative_loss(
            negative_logits, negative_weights[begin:end], config
        )
        selected_weights = torch.from_numpy(
            sample_weights[begin:end].astype(np.float32, copy=False)
        ).to(device)
        loss_sum = (
            selected_weights * (positive_loss + negative_loss) / 2.0
        ).sum()
        if not bool(torch.isfinite(loss_sum)):
            raise RuntimeError("dense next-item training produced non-finite loss")
        if backward:
            (loss_sum / total_weight).backward()
            if sequence_input.grad is None:
                raise RuntimeError("sequence microbatch did not produce a gradient")
            sequence_gradient[begin:end] = sequence_input.grad
        statistics["loss_sum"] += float(loss_sum.detach().cpu())
        statistics["positive_sum"] += float(positive_logits.detach().sum().cpu())
        statistics["negative_sum"] += float(negative_logits.detach().sum().cpu())
58

read_file train_current_model.py

+28:46
Recorded reasoning summary 30 words

Exploring InfoNCE Logic

I'm currently focused on the infonce loss type within score_target_microbatches. My analysis is zeroed in on how the positive_logits are scaled before being used in the calculation.

Recorded reasoning summary 52 words

Refining Temperature Scaling

My current focus is on the temperature scaling within the InfoNCE loss calculation. I'm dissecting how the temperature parameter influences both the positive and negative logits before they are combined for the cross-entropy loss. I am also examining the BPR loss implementation and its use of negative_logits minus positive_logits.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "end_line": 75,
  "start_line": 45
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 45-75 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 76.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    hidden_dim: int = 192
    user_hidden_1: int = 512
    user_hidden_2: int = 256
    item_hidden_1: int = 512
    item_hidden_2: int = 256
    dropout: float = 0.05
    epochs: int = 1
    learning_rate: float = 1.0e-3
    weight_decay: float = 1.0e-5
    gradient_clip: float = 2.0
    loss_microbatch_size: int = 65_536
    uniform_negatives: int = 24
    inbatch_negatives: int = 8
    inbatch_correction_power: float = 0.5
    inbatch_correction_min: float = 0.25
    inbatch_correction_max: float = 4.0
    negative_filter_scope: str = "full-training-history"
    target_weighting: str = "organic-strong"
    ordinary_target_weight: float = 0.25
    organic_strong_target_weight: float = 1.0
    organic_like_target_weight: float = 3.0
    discovery_horizon_days: int = 7
    validation_fraction: float = 0.10
    max_train_targets_per_user: int = 128
    max_validation_targets_per_user: int = 16
    early_stopping_patience: int = 1
    early_stopping_min_delta: float = 1.0e-4
    seed: int = 29


@dataclass(frozen=True)
59

read_file train_current_model.py

+28:49
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "start_line": 1935,
  "end_line": 2050,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1935-2050 of 2165 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 2051.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    )
    parser.add_argument("--epochs", type=int, default=Config.epochs)
    parser.add_argument("--learning-rate", type=float, default=Config.learning_rate)
    parser.add_argument(
        "--loss-microbatch-size",
        type=int,
        default=Config.loss_microbatch_size,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--negative-filter-scope",
        choices=("full-training-history", "last-100"),
        default=Config.negative_filter_scope,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--target-weighting",
        choices=("discovery-graded", "organic-strong", "uniform"),
        default=Config.target_weighting,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--ordinary-target-weight",
        type=float,
        default=Config.ordinary_target_weight,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--organic-strong-target-weight",
        type=float,
        default=Config.organic_strong_target_weight,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--organic-like-target-weight",
        type=float,
        default=Config.organic_like_target_weight,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--discovery-horizon-days",
        type=int,
        default=Config.discovery_horizon_days,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--validation-fraction",
        type=float,
        default=Config.validation_fraction,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--max-train-targets-per-user",
        type=int,
        default=Config.max_train_targets_per_user,
        help="retain this many recent pre-validation targets per user; 0 is uncapped",
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--max-validation-targets-per-user",
        type=int,
        default=Config.max_validation_targets_per_user,
        help="retain this many final validation targets per user; 0 is uncapped",
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--early-stopping-patience",
        type=int,
        default=Config.early_stopping_patience,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--early-stopping-min-delta",
        type=float,
        default=Config.early_stopping_min_delta,
    )
    parser.add_argument("--checkpoint-dir", type=Path)
    parser.add_argument("--resume-checkpoint", type=Path)
    parser.add_argument("--seed", type=int, default=Config.seed)
    parser.add_argument("--ranking-batch-size", type=int, default=64)
    parser.add_argument("--prepare-only", action="store_true")
    args = parser.parse_args()

    if args.threads < 1 or args.bptt_steps < 2 or args.user_batch_size < 1:
        parser.error("threads, BPTT steps, and user batch size must be positive")
    if (
        args.epochs < 1
        or args.learning_rate <= 0
        or args.loss_microbatch_size < 1
        or args.early_stopping_patience < 1
        or args.early_stopping_min_delta < 0
        or args.ordinary_target_weight <= 0
        or args.organic_strong_target_weight <= 0
        or args.organic_like_target_weight <= 0
        or args.discovery_horizon_days < 1
        or args.max_train_targets_per_user < 0
        or args.max_validation_targets_per_user < 0
    ):
        parser.error("training counts, learning rate, and patience are invalid")
    if not 0.0 < args.validation_fraction < 1.0:
        parser.error("validation fraction must be strictly between zero and one")
    public = args.public_dir.resolve()
    if not (public / "data" / "candidate_catalog.parquet").is_file():
        parser.error(f"public task data not found under {public}")
    config = Config(
        bptt_steps=args.bptt_steps,
        user_batch_size=args.user_batch_size,
        epochs=args.epochs,
        learning_rate=args.learning_rate,
        loss_microbatch_size=args.loss_microbatch_size,
        negative_filter_scope=args.negative_filter_scope,
        target_weighting=args.target_weighting,
        ordinary_target_weight=args.ordinary_target_weight,
        organic_strong_target_weight=args.organic_strong_target_weight,
        organic_like_target_weight=args.organic_like_target_weight,
        discovery_horizon_days=args.discovery_horizon_days,
        validation_fraction=args.validation_fraction,
        max_train_targets_per_user=args.max_train_targets_per_user,
        max_validation_targets_per_user=args.max_validation_targets_per_user,
        early_stopping_patience=args.early_stopping_patience,
        early_stopping_min_delta=args.early_stopping_min_delta,
        seed=args.seed,
    )
    torch.set_num_threads(args.threads)
    torch.set_num_interop_threads(1)
    seed_everything(config.seed)
    device = torch.device(args.device)
60

replace train_current_model.py

+29:03
Recorded reasoning summary 28 words

Exploring Configuration Options

I'm currently examining the Config dataclass, focusing on parameters like bptt_steps, user_batch_size, embedding_dim, and hidden_dim. I'm also reviewing the initial layers of user-specific hidden dimensions.

Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Refining Hyperparameters

I'm now deeply engrossed in fine-tuning the hyperparameters. My focus has shifted to the nuances of negative sampling strategies and target weighting, specifically exploring values for uniform_negatives, inbatch_negatives, and the various target_weighting parameters.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Testing Inbatch Sampling

I'm now investigating the inbatch_sampling functionality. Specifically, I'm analyzing the "batch-frequency" logic for negative sampling and how it interacts with inbatch_negatives, while also noting that "unique-targets" retains prior behavior. I'm also looking at the support for different loss_type values in score_target_microbatches.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Implementing Loss Functions

I'm now implementing the core logic for both "infonce" and "bpr" loss functions. My current focus is on correctly calculating and applying the temperature scaling for logits, and then utilizing F.cross_entropy for the "infonce" loss. I'm also setting up the difference calculation for the "bpr" loss.

Tool callreplace/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "old_string": "    early_stopping_patience: int = 1\n    early_stopping_min_delta: float = 1.0e-4\n    seed: int = 29",
  "instruction": "Add loss_type, temperature, and inbatch_sampling parameters to Config",
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "new_string": "    early_stopping_patience: int = 1\n    early_stopping_min_delta: float = 1.0e-4\n    seed: int = 29\n    loss_type: str = \"bce\"\n    temperature: float = 1.0\n    inbatch_sampling: str = \"unique-targets\""
}

Tool response

Successfully modified file: /app/solution/train_current_model.py (1 replacements). Here is the updated code:
...
    max_train_targets_per_user: int = 128
    max_validation_targets_per_user: int = 16
    early_stopping_patience: int = 1
    early_stopping_min_delta: float = 1.0e-4
    seed: int = 29
    loss_type: str = "bce"
    temperature: float = 1.0
    inbatch_sampling: str = "unique-targets"


@dataclass(frozen=True)
class CandidateSet:
    uids: np.ndarray
...
61

read_file train_current_model.py

+29:06
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 685,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 650
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 650-685 of 2168 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 686.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
        (batch_size, config.uniform_negatives),
        generator=generator,
        device="cpu",
    )
    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long)
    corrected_count = 0
    if config.inbatch_negatives:
        unique_targets = torch.unique(targets.detach().cpu())
        corrected_count = min(
            config.inbatch_negatives, max(len(unique_targets) - 1, 0)
        )
        if corrected_count:
            priorities = torch.rand(
                (batch_size, len(unique_targets)), generator=generator
            )
            priorities.masked_fill_(
                unique_targets[None, :].eq(
                    torch.from_numpy(targets_cpu)[:, None]
                ),
                -1.0,
            )
            columns = torch.topk(
                priorities, k=corrected_count, dim=1
            ).indices
            inbatch = unique_targets[columns]
        if corrected_count < config.inbatch_negatives:
            filler = torch.randint(
                n_items,
                (batch_size, config.inbatch_negatives - corrected_count),
                generator=generator,
                device="cpu",
            )
            inbatch = torch.cat([inbatch, filler], dim=1)

    negatives = torch.cat([uniform, inbatch], dim=1).numpy()
    correction = np.ones_like(negatives, dtype=np.float32)
62

replace train_current_model.py

+29:15
Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Refining Sampling Logic

I'm currently digging into the draw_full_history_filtered_negatives function, specifically examining how the batch-frequency in-batch sampling is handled. My focus is on refining the initialization of the inbatch tensor and ensuring the corrected_count is correctly managed under this sampling strategy.

Recorded reasoning summary 36 words

Revising Batch-Frequency Logic

I'm now focused on the batch-frequency in-batch sampling. My current efforts are directed at the precise initialization of the inbatch tensor and ensuring the corrected_count is accurately determined within this specific sampling mechanism.

Tool callreplace/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "instruction": "Support batch-frequency inbatch sampling in draw_full_history_filtered_negatives",
  "old_string": "    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long)\n    corrected_count = 0\n    if config.inbatch_negatives:\n        unique_targets = torch.unique(targets.detach().cpu())\n        corrected_count = min(\n            config.inbatch_negatives, max(len(unique_targets) - 1, 0)\n        )\n        if corrected_count:\n            priorities = torch.rand(\n                (batch_size, len(unique_targets)), generator=generator\n            )\n            priorities.masked_fill_(\n                unique_targets[None, :].eq(\n                    torch.from_numpy(targets_cpu)[:, None]\n                ),\n                -1.0,\n            )\n            columns = torch.topk(\n                priorities, k=corrected_count, dim=1\n            ).indices\n            inbatch = unique_targets[columns]\n        if corrected_count < config.inbatch_negatives:\n            filler = torch.randint(\n                n_items,\n                (batch_size, config.inbatch_negatives - corrected_count),\n                generator=generator,\n                device=\"cpu\",\n            )\n            inbatch = torch.cat([inbatch, filler], dim=1)",
  "new_string": "    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long)\n    corrected_count = 0\n    if config.inbatch_negatives:\n        if config.inbatch_sampling == \"batch-frequency\":\n            corrected_count = config.inbatch_negatives\n            indices = torch.randint(\n                0, batch_size, (batch_size, config.inbatch_negatives), generator=generator, device=\"cpu\"\n            )\n            inbatch = torch.from_numpy(targets_cpu)[indices]\n        else:\n            unique_targets = torch.unique(targets.detach().cpu())\n            corrected_count = min(\n                config.inbatch_negatives, max(len(unique_targets) - 1, 0)\n            )\n            if corrected_count:\n                priorities = torch.rand(\n                    (batch_size, len(unique_targets)), generator=generator\n                )\n                priorities.masked_fill_(\n                    unique_targets[None, :].eq(\n                        torch.from_numpy(targets_cpu)[:, None]\n                    ),\n                    -1.0,\n                )\n                columns = torch.topk(\n                    priorities, k=corrected_count, dim=1\n                ).indices\n                inbatch = unique_targets[columns]\n            if corrected_count < config.inbatch_negatives:\n                filler = torch.randint(\n                    n_items,\n                    (batch_size, config.inbatch_negatives - corrected_count),\n                    generator=generator,\n                    device=\"cpu\",\n                )\n                inbatch = torch.cat([inbatch, filler], dim=1)"
}

Tool response

Successfully modified file: /app/solution/train_current_model.py (1 replacements). Here is the updated code:
...
        device="cpu",
    )
    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long)
    corrected_count = 0
    if config.inbatch_negatives:
        if config.inbatch_sampling == "batch-frequency":
            corrected_count = config.inbatch_negatives
            indices = torch.randint(
                0, batch_size, (batch_size, config.inbatch_negatives), generator=generator, device="cpu"
            )
            inbatch = torch.from_numpy(targets_cpu)[indices]
        else:
            unique_targets = torch.unique(targets.detach().cpu())
            corrected_count = min(
                config.inbatch_negatives, max(len(unique_targets) - 1, 0)
            )
            if corrected_count:
                priorities = torch.rand(
                    (batch_size, len(unique_targets)), generator=generator
                )
                priorities.masked_fill_(
                    unique_targets[None, :].eq(
                        torch.from_numpy(targets_cpu)[:, None]
                    ),
                    -1.0,
                )
                columns = torch.topk(
                    priorities, k=corrected_count, dim=1
                ).indices
                inbatch = unique_targets[columns]
            if corrected_count < config.inbatch_negatives:
                filler = torch.randint(
                    n_items,
                    (batch_size, config.inbatch_negatives - corrected_count),
                    generator=generator,
                    device="cpu",
                )
                inbatch = torch.cat([inbatch, filler], dim=1)

    negatives = torch.cat([uniform, inbatch], dim=1).numpy()
    correction = np.ones_like(negatives, dtype=np.float32)
    if corrected_count:
        correction[
...
63

read_file train_current_model.py

+29:18
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 1195,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 1165
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1165-1195 of 2175 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 1196.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
        query_vectors = user_queries(
            model,
            sequence_input,
            liked_vectors,
            disliked_vectors,
            torch.from_numpy(numeric).to(device),
        )
        positive_vectors, negative_vectors = candidate_vectors(
            model,
            positive_items[begin:end],
            negatives[begin:end],
        )
        positive_logits = (query_vectors * positive_vectors).sum(dim=1)
        negative_logits = torch.einsum(
            "bd,bkd->bk", query_vectors, negative_vectors
        )
        positive_loss = F.softplus(-positive_logits)
        negative_loss = corrected_negative_loss(
            negative_logits, negative_weights[begin:end], config
        )
        selected_weights = torch.from_numpy(
            sample_weights[begin:end].astype(np.float32, copy=False)
        ).to(device)
        loss_sum = (
            selected_weights * (positive_loss + negative_loss) / 2.0
        ).sum()
        if not bool(torch.isfinite(loss_sum)):
            raise RuntimeError("dense next-item training produced non-finite loss")
        if backward:
            (loss_sum / total_weight).backward()
            if sequence_input.grad is None:
64

replace train_current_model.py

+29:24
Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Refining Logit Calculation

I'm currently examining the score_target_microbatches function, specifically how the positive and negative logits are computed. My focus is on the efficiency and accuracy of the matrix operations involved, particularly the torch.einsum call.

Recorded reasoning summary 34 words

Optimizing Loss Computation

My current focus is on streamlining the infonce and bpr loss calculations. I'm exploring how to efficiently apply weights and temperature scaling within these operations, aiming for both speed and precision.

Tool callreplace/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "new_string": "        positive_logits = (query_vectors * positive_vectors).sum(dim=1)\n        negative_logits = torch.einsum(\n            \"bd,bkd->bk\", query_vectors, negative_vectors\n        )\n        selected_weights = torch.from_numpy(\n            sample_weights[begin:end].astype(np.float32, copy=False)\n        ).to(device)\n        if config.loss_type == \"infonce\":\n            scaled_pos = (positive_logits / config.temperature).unsqueeze(1)\n            scaled_neg = negative_logits / config.temperature\n            logits = torch.cat([scaled_pos, scaled_neg], dim=1)\n            targets_zero = torch.zeros(len(logits), dtype=torch.long, device=device)\n            sample_loss = F.cross_entropy(logits, targets_zero, reduction=\"none\")\n            loss_sum = (selected_weights * sample_loss).sum()\n        elif config.loss_type == \"bpr\":\n            diff = (negative_logits - positive_logits.unsqueeze(1)) / config.temperature\n            sample_loss = F.softplus(diff).mean(dim=1)\n            loss_sum = (selected_weights * sample_loss).sum()\n        else:\n            positive_loss = F.softplus(-positive_logits)\n            negative_loss = corrected_negative_loss(\n                negative_logits, negative_weights[begin:end], config\n            )\n            loss_sum = (\n                selected_weights * (positive_loss + negative_loss) / 2.0\n            ).sum()",
  "old_string": "        positive_logits = (query_vectors * positive_vectors).sum(dim=1)\n        negative_logits = torch.einsum(\n            \"bd,bkd->bk\", query_vectors, negative_vectors\n        )\n        positive_loss = F.softplus(-positive_logits)\n        negative_loss = corrected_negative_loss(\n            negative_logits, negative_weights[begin:end], config\n        )\n        selected_weights = torch.from_numpy(\n            sample_weights[begin:end].astype(np.float32, copy=False)\n        ).to(device)\n        loss_sum = (\n            selected_weights * (positive_loss + negative_loss) / 2.0\n        ).sum()",
  "instruction": "Support loss_type in score_target_microbatches",
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response

Successfully modified file: /app/solution/train_current_model.py (1 replacements). Here is the updated code:
...
        )
        positive_logits = (query_vectors * positive_vectors).sum(dim=1)
        negative_logits = torch.einsum(
            "bd,bkd->bk", query_vectors, negative_vectors
        )
        selected_weights = torch.from_numpy(
            sample_weights[begin:end].astype(np.float32, copy=False)
        ).to(device)
        if config.loss_type == "infonce":
            scaled_pos = (positive_logits / config.temperature).unsqueeze(1)
            scaled_neg = negative_logits / config.temperature
            logits = torch.cat([scaled_pos, scaled_neg], dim=1)
            targets_zero = torch.zeros(len(logits), dtype=torch.long, device=device)
            sample_loss = F.cross_entropy(logits, targets_zero, reduction="none")
            loss_sum = (selected_weights * sample_loss).sum()
        elif config.loss_type == "bpr":
            diff = (negative_logits - positive_logits.unsqueeze(1)) / config.temperature
            sample_loss = F.softplus(diff).mean(dim=1)
            loss_sum = (selected_weights * sample_loss).sum()
        else:
            positive_loss = F.softplus(-positive_logits)
            negative_loss = corrected_negative_loss(
                negative_logits, negative_weights[begin:end], config
            )
            loss_sum = (
                selected_weights * (positive_loss + negative_loss) / 2.0
            ).sum()
        if not bool(torch.isfinite(loss_sum)):
            raise RuntimeError("dense next-item training produced non-finite loss")
        if backward:
            (loss_sum / total_weight).backward()
            if sequence_input.grad is None:
...
65

read_file train_current_model.py

+29:27
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "end_line": 2070,
  "start_line": 1970
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1970-2070 of 2187 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 2071.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    parser.add_argument(
        "--target-weighting",
        choices=("discovery-graded", "organic-strong", "uniform"),
        default=Config.target_weighting,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--ordinary-target-weight",
        type=float,
        default=Config.ordinary_target_weight,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--organic-strong-target-weight",
        type=float,
        default=Config.organic_strong_target_weight,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--organic-like-target-weight",
        type=float,
        default=Config.organic_like_target_weight,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--discovery-horizon-days",
        type=int,
        default=Config.discovery_horizon_days,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--validation-fraction",
        type=float,
        default=Config.validation_fraction,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--max-train-targets-per-user",
        type=int,
        default=Config.max_train_targets_per_user,
        help="retain this many recent pre-validation targets per user; 0 is uncapped",
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--max-validation-targets-per-user",
        type=int,
        default=Config.max_validation_targets_per_user,
        help="retain this many final validation targets per user; 0 is uncapped",
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--early-stopping-patience",
        type=int,
        default=Config.early_stopping_patience,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--early-stopping-min-delta",
        type=float,
        default=Config.early_stopping_min_delta,
    )
    parser.add_argument("--checkpoint-dir", type=Path)
    parser.add_argument("--resume-checkpoint", type=Path)
    parser.add_argument("--seed", type=int, default=Config.seed)
    parser.add_argument("--ranking-batch-size", type=int, default=64)
    parser.add_argument("--prepare-only", action="store_true")
    args = parser.parse_args()

    if args.threads < 1 or args.bptt_steps < 2 or args.user_batch_size < 1:
        parser.error("threads, BPTT steps, and user batch size must be positive")
    if (
        args.epochs < 1
        or args.learning_rate <= 0
        or args.loss_microbatch_size < 1
        or args.early_stopping_patience < 1
        or args.early_stopping_min_delta < 0
        or args.ordinary_target_weight <= 0
        or args.organic_strong_target_weight <= 0
        or args.organic_like_target_weight <= 0
        or args.discovery_horizon_days < 1
        or args.max_train_targets_per_user < 0
        or args.max_validation_targets_per_user < 0
    ):
        parser.error("training counts, learning rate, and patience are invalid")
    if not 0.0 < args.validation_fraction < 1.0:
        parser.error("validation fraction must be strictly between zero and one")
    public = args.public_dir.resolve()
    if not (public / "data" / "candidate_catalog.parquet").is_file():
        parser.error(f"public task data not found under {public}")
    config = Config(
        bptt_steps=args.bptt_steps,
        user_batch_size=args.user_batch_size,
        epochs=args.epochs,
        learning_rate=args.learning_rate,
        loss_microbatch_size=args.loss_microbatch_size,
        negative_filter_scope=args.negative_filter_scope,
        target_weighting=args.target_weighting,
        ordinary_target_weight=args.ordinary_target_weight,
        organic_strong_target_weight=args.organic_strong_target_weight,
        organic_like_target_weight=args.organic_like_target_weight,
        discovery_horizon_days=args.discovery_horizon_days,
        validation_fraction=args.validation_fraction,
        max_train_targets_per_user=args.max_train_targets_per_user,
        max_validation_targets_per_user=args.max_validation_targets_per_user,
        early_stopping_patience=args.early_stopping_patience,
        early_stopping_min_delta=args.early_stopping_min_delta,
        seed=args.seed,
    )
    torch.set_num_threads(args.threads)
    torch.set_num_interop_threads(1)
66

replace train_current_model.py

+29:42
Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Adding Arguments

I'm currently focused on enhancing argument parsing within the parse_args function. My latest refinement involves integrating a new --uniform-negatives argument, allowing for integer specification and defaulting to Config.uniform_negatives. I'm also preparing to introduce the --inbatch- argument.

Tool callreplace/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "new_string": "    parser.add_argument(\n        \"--uniform-negatives\",\n        type=int,\n        default=Config.uniform_negatives,\n    )\n    parser.add_argument(\n        \"--inbatch-negatives\",\n        type=int,\n        default=Config.inbatch_negatives,\n    )\n    parser.add_argument(\n        \"--inbatch-correction-power\",\n        type=float,\n        default=Config.inbatch_correction_power,\n    )\n    parser.add_argument(\n        \"--loss-type\",\n        choices=(\"bce\", \"infonce\", \"bpr\"),\n        default=Config.loss_type,\n    )\n    parser.add_argument(\n        \"--temperature\",\n        type=float,\n        default=Config.temperature,\n    )\n    parser.add_argument(\n        \"--inbatch-sampling\",\n        choices=(\"batch-frequency\", \"unique-targets\"),\n        default=Config.inbatch_sampling,\n    )\n    parser.add_argument(\n        \"--early-stopping-patience\",\n        type=int,\n        default=Config.early_stopping_patience,\n    )\n    parser.add_argument(\n        \"--early-stopping-min-delta\",\n        type=float,\n        default=Config.early_stopping_min_delta,\n    )\n    parser.add_argument(\"--checkpoint-dir\", type=Path)\n    parser.add_argument(\"--resume-checkpoint\", type=Path)\n    parser.add_argument(\"--seed\", type=int, default=Config.seed)\n    parser.add_argument(\"--ranking-batch-size\", type=int, default=64)\n    parser.add_argument(\"--prepare-only\", action=\"store_true\")\n    args = parser.parse_args()\n\n    if args.threads < 1 or args.bptt_steps < 2 or args.user_batch_size < 1:\n        parser.error(\"threads, BPTT steps, and user batch size must be positive\")\n    if (\n        args.epochs < 1\n        or args.learning_rate <= 0\n        or args.loss_microbatch_size < 1\n        or args.early_stopping_patience < 1\n        or args.early_stopping_min_delta < 0\n        or args.ordinary_target_weight <= 0\n        or args.organic_strong_target_weight <= 0\n        or args.organic_like_target_weight <= 0\n        or args.discovery_horizon_days < 1\n        or args.max_train_targets_per_user < 0\n        or args.max_validation_targets_per_user < 0\n    ):\n        parser.error(\"training counts, learning rate, and patience are invalid\")\n    if not 0.0 < args.validation_fraction < 1.0:\n        parser.error(\"validation fraction must be strictly between zero and one\")\n    public = args.public_dir.resolve()\n    if not (public / \"data\" / \"candidate_catalog.parquet\").is_file():\n        parser.error(f\"public task data not found under {public}\")\n    config = Config(\n        bptt_steps=args.bptt_steps,\n        user_batch_size=args.user_batch_size,\n        epochs=args.epochs,\n        learning_rate=args.learning_rate,\n        loss_microbatch_size=args.loss_microbatch_size,\n        uniform_negatives=args.uniform_negatives,\n        inbatch_negatives=args.inbatch_negatives,\n        inbatch_correction_power=args.inbatch_correction_power,\n        negative_filter_scope=args.negative_filter_scope,\n        target_weighting=args.target_weighting,\n        ordinary_target_weight=args.ordinary_target_weight,\n        organic_strong_target_weight=args.organic_strong_target_weight,\n        organic_like_target_weight=args.organic_like_target_weight,\n        discovery_horizon_days=args.discovery_horizon_days,\n        validation_fraction=args.validation_fraction,\n        max_train_targets_per_user=args.max_train_targets_per_user,\n        max_validation_targets_per_user=args.max_validation_targets_per_user,\n        early_stopping_patience=args.early_stopping_patience,\n        early_stopping_min_delta=args.early_stopping_min_delta,\n        seed=args.seed,\n        loss_type=args.loss_type,\n        temperature=args.temperature,\n        inbatch_sampling=args.inbatch_sampling,\n    )",
  "instruction": "Add arguments for negative sampling and loss in parse_args and pass to Config",
  "old_string": "    parser.add_argument(\n        \"--early-stopping-patience\",\n        type=int,\n        default=Config.early_stopping_patience,\n    )\n    parser.add_argument(\n        \"--early-stopping-min-delta\",\n        type=float,\n        default=Config.early_stopping_min_delta,\n    )\n    parser.add_argument(\"--checkpoint-dir\", type=Path)\n    parser.add_argument(\"--resume-checkpoint\", type=Path)\n    parser.add_argument(\"--seed\", type=int, default=Config.seed)\n    parser.add_argument(\"--ranking-batch-size\", type=int, default=64)\n    parser.add_argument(\"--prepare-only\", action=\"store_true\")\n    args = parser.parse_args()\n\n    if args.threads < 1 or args.bptt_steps < 2 or args.user_batch_size < 1:\n        parser.error(\"threads, BPTT steps, and user batch size must be positive\")\n    if (\n        args.epochs < 1\n        or args.learning_rate <= 0\n        or args.loss_microbatch_size < 1\n        or args.early_stopping_patience < 1\n        or args.early_stopping_min_delta < 0\n        or args.ordinary_target_weight <= 0\n        or args.organic_strong_target_weight <= 0\n        or args.organic_like_target_weight <= 0\n        or args.discovery_horizon_days < 1\n        or args.max_train_targets_per_user < 0\n        or args.max_validation_targets_per_user < 0\n    ):\n        parser.error(\"training counts, learning rate, and patience are invalid\")\n    if not 0.0 < args.validation_fraction < 1.0:\n        parser.error(\"validation fraction must be strictly between zero and one\")\n    public = args.public_dir.resolve()\n    if not (public / \"data\" / \"candidate_catalog.parquet\").is_file():\n        parser.error(f\"public task data not found under {public}\")\n    config = Config(\n        bptt_steps=args.bptt_steps,\n        user_batch_size=args.user_batch_size,\n        epochs=args.epochs,\n        learning_rate=args.learning_rate,\n        loss_microbatch_size=args.loss_microbatch_size,\n        negative_filter_scope=args.negative_filter_scope,\n        target_weighting=args.target_weighting,\n        ordinary_target_weight=args.ordinary_target_weight,\n        organic_strong_target_weight=args.organic_strong_target_weight,\n        organic_like_target_weight=args.organic_like_target_weight,\n        discovery_horizon_days=args.discovery_horizon_days,\n        validation_fraction=args.validation_fraction,\n        max_train_targets_per_user=args.max_train_targets_per_user,\n        max_validation_targets_per_user=args.max_validation_targets_per_user,\n        early_stopping_patience=args.early_stopping_patience,\n        early_stopping_min_delta=args.early_stopping_min_delta,\n        seed=args.seed,\n    )"
}

Tool response

Successfully modified file: /app/solution/train_current_model.py (1 replacements). Here is the updated code:
...
        type=int,
        default=Config.max_validation_targets_per_user,
        help="retain this many final validation targets per user; 0 is uncapped",
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--uniform-negatives",
        type=int,
        default=Config.uniform_negatives,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--inbatch-negatives",
        type=int,
        default=Config.inbatch_negatives,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--inbatch-correction-power",
        type=float,
        default=Config.inbatch_correction_power,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--loss-type",
        choices=("bce", "infonce", "bpr"),
        default=Config.loss_type,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--temperature",
        type=float,
        default=Config.temperature,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--inbatch-sampling",
        choices=("batch-frequency", "unique-targets"),
        default=Config.inbatch_sampling,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--early-stopping-patience",
        type=int,
        default=Config.early_stopping_patience,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
...
        bptt_steps=args.bptt_steps,
        user_batch_size=args.user_batch_size,
        epochs=args.epochs,
        learning_rate=args.learning_rate,
        loss_microbatch_size=args.loss_microbatch_size,
        uniform_negatives=args.uniform_negatives,
        inbatch_negatives=args.inbatch_negatives,
        inbatch_correction_power=args.inbatch_correction_power,
        negative_filter_scope=args.negative_filter_scope,
        target_weighting=args.target_weighting,
        ordinary_target_weight=args.ordinary_target_weight,
        organic_strong_target_weight=args.organic_strong_target_weight,
        organic_like_target_weight=args.organic_like_target_weight,
...
        max_train_targets_per_user=args.max_train_targets_per_user,
        max_validation_targets_per_user=args.max_validation_targets_per_user,
        early_stopping_patience=args.early_stopping_patience,
        early_stopping_min_delta=args.early_stopping_min_delta,
        seed=args.seed,
        loss_type=args.loss_type,
        temperature=args.temperature,
        inbatch_sampling=args.inbatch_sampling,
    )
    torch.set_num_threads(args.threads)
    torch.set_num_interop_threads(1)
    seed_everything(config.seed)
    device = torch.device(args.device)
...
67

Test inbatch-correction-power 0.0 with discovery-graded weighting

+29:45
Recorded reasoning summary 32 words

Checking Defaults Carefully

I am currently verifying that all default parameters, including loss_type, temperature, inbatch_sampling, uniform_negatives, and inbatch_negatives, precisely align with the established baseline. This meticulous cross-referencing ensures foundational consistency before proceeding.

Tool callrun_shell_commandTest inbatch-correction-power 0.0 with discovery-graded weighting Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Test inbatch-correction-power 0.0 with discovery-graded weighting",
  "command": "python /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --output /app/solution/exp2_corr0.parquet \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --target-weighting discovery-graded \\\n  --inbatch-correction-power 0.0 && python /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/exp2_corr0.parquet"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: loaded full-sequence cache: tokens=20,056,329 targets=20,047,194
chronological BCE window: train=1,052,953 validation=130,103 selected=1,183,056 discarded_old_targets=18,864,138 all=20,047,194
inbatch correction: min=1.000 mean_on_targets=1.000 max=1.000
loaded organic-like outcomes: rows=301,527 users=7,526
grade-3 first-encounter targets=46,417 horizon_days=7
target weighting=discovery-graded min=0.250 mean=0.310 max=3.000
full-history false-negative filter: users=9,135 unique_user_items=5,524,275 bytes=34,256,250
epoch=1/1 batches=250 targets=987,417 batch_bce=0.563095 running_bce=0.563300 elapsed=197.8s
epoch=1/1 train_loss=0.56103 validation_loss=0.52015 pair_accuracy=0.763 train_targets=1,052,953 validation_targets=130,103 train_seconds=210.9 validation_seconds=15.6
restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch=1 loss=0.520147
ranked users=1,024/8,456
ranked users=2,048/8,456
ranked users=3,072/8,456
ranked users=4,096/8,456
ranked users=5,120/8,456
ranked users=6,144/8,456
ranked users=7,168/8,456
ranked users=8,192/8,456
ranked users=8,456/8,456
{
  "baseline": "yambda-windowed-sequence-two-tower-base",
  "stage": "validation",
  "output": "/app/solution/exp2_corr0.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 317.922,
  "public_inputs_only": true,
  "architecture": {
    "family": "pure-windowed-sequence-two-tower",
    "sequence_training": "every-adjacent-target-within-recent-chronological-window",
    "sequence_encoder": "one-layer-GRU-dense-timestep-loss",
    "bptt_hidden_state": "carried-and-detached",
    "model_selection": "chronological-validation-BCE-early-stopping",
    "loss_execution": "gradient-accumulated-microbatches",
    "user_id_embedding": false,
    "user_mlp": "582-512-256-192",
    "item_mlp": "196-512-256-192",
    "normalization": "none",
    "score": "raw-dot-product",
    "objective": "sample-weighted-BCE-at-every-timestep",
    "negative_sampling": "24-uniform-plus-8-propensity-corrected-inbatch",
    "false_negative_filter": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "discovery-graded"
  },
  "config": {
    "bptt_steps": 100,
    "user_batch_size": 64,
    "embedding_dim": 192,
    "hidden_dim": 192,
    "user_hidden_1": 512,
    "user_hidden_2": 256,
    "item_hidden_1": 512,
    "item_hidden_2": 256,
    "dropout": 0.05,
    "epochs": 1,
    "learning_rate": 0.001,
    "weight_decay": 1e-05,
    "gradient_clip": 2.0,
    "loss_microbatch_size": 65536,
    "uniform_negatives": 24,
    "inbatch_negatives": 8,
    "inbatch_correction_power": 0.0,
    "inbatch_correction_min": 0.25,
    "inbatch_correction_max": 4.0,
    "negative_filter_scope": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "discovery-graded",
    "ordinary_target_weight": 0.25,
    "organic_strong_target_weight": 1.0,
    "organic_like_target_weight": 3.0,
    "discovery_horizon_days": 7,
    "validation_fraction": 0.1,
    "max_train_targets_per_user": 128,
    "max_validation_targets_per_user": 16,
    "early_stopping_patience": 1,
    "early_stopping_min_delta": 0.0001,
    "seed": 29,
    "loss_type": "bce",
    "temperature": 1.0,
    "inbatch_sampling": "unique-targets"
  },
  "sequence_tokens": 20056329,
  "all_next_item_targets": 20047194,
  "selected_training_targets": 1052953,
  "selected_validation_targets": 130103,
  "discarded_old_targets": 18864138,
  "training_history": [
    {
      "epoch": 1.0,
      "loss": 0.5610289423063375,
      "positive_logit": 0.6264491060736955,
      "negative_logit": -0.6609029005465753,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.7632028091472269,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 348780.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 210.9071019930002,
      "validation_loss": 0.5201467737373525,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 42129.5,
      "validation_seconds": 15.63540272199998
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.8937625885009766,
    "query_norm_std": 0.849907636642456,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.7925585508346558,
    "item_norm_std": 0.7955368161201477
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
{
  "model": "/app/solution/exp2_corr0.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.015049,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 2021
</untrusted_context>
68

Inspect recommendations from exp2_corr0

+35:17
Recorded reasoning summary 33 words

Investigating NDCG Drop

I'm digging into why NDCG plummeted to 0.015049 when inbatch-correction-power was zeroed out in BCE. It seems related to the softplus operation on the logits within the BCE loss calculation.

Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect recommendations from exp2_corr0 Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Inspect recommendations from exp2_corr0",
  "command": "python3 -c \"import pandas as pd\ndf = pd.read_parquet('/app/solution/exp2_corr0.parquet')\nprint('Top 10 recommended items:')\nprint(df['item_id'].value_counts().head(10))\ncatalog = pd.read_parquet('/task/data/candidate_catalog.parquet')\ntop_rec_ids = df['item_id'].value_counts().head(10).index\nprint(catalog[catalog.item_id.isin(top_rec_ids)][['item_id', 'popularity_rank', 'positive_listens']])\n\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Top 10 recommended items:
item_id
6896222    2859
3970945    2727
8722394    2466
6006390    2363
2705460    2311
5010168    2287
7227266    2271
6625048    2255
2055777    2243
8647463    2143
Name: count, dtype: int64
      item_id  popularity_rank  positive_listens
74    6006390               75              8970
127   6625048              128              7133
407   8647463              408              4381
633   8722394              634              3464
817   6896222              818              3020
918   7227266              919              2823
1169  2055777             1170              2465
2946  5010168             2947              1385
3015  2705460             3016              1361
3594  3970945             3595              1206
Process Group PGID: 2073
</untrusted_context>
69

Test InfoNCE loss with temperature 1.0

+35:29
Recorded reasoning summary 47 words

Analyzing Correction Impact

I'm reviewing the logs from exp2_corr0.parquet and noticed a shift in positive logits compared to exp1. This seems to confirm my suspicion that the Binary Cross-Entropy loss was disproportionately penalizing popular items, thus suppressing positive logit values. I'm now proceeding to investigate Hypothesis 2.

Tool callrun_shell_commandTest InfoNCE loss with temperature 1.0 Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --output /app/solution/exp3_infonce_t1.parquet \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --target-weighting discovery-graded \\\n  --loss-type infonce \\\n  --temperature 1.0 && python /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/exp3_infonce_t1.parquet",
  "description": "Test InfoNCE loss with temperature 1.0"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: loaded full-sequence cache: tokens=20,056,329 targets=20,047,194
chronological BCE window: train=1,052,953 validation=130,103 selected=1,183,056 discarded_old_targets=18,864,138 all=20,047,194
inbatch correction: min=0.250 mean_on_targets=1.001 max=4.000
loaded organic-like outcomes: rows=301,527 users=7,526
grade-3 first-encounter targets=46,417 horizon_days=7
target weighting=discovery-graded min=0.250 mean=0.310 max=3.000
full-history false-negative filter: users=9,135 unique_user_items=5,524,275 bytes=34,256,250
epoch=1/1 batches=250 targets=987,417 batch_bce=2.949887 running_bce=2.911879 elapsed=196.8s
epoch=1/1 train_loss=2.90219 validation_loss=2.73334 pair_accuracy=0.762 train_targets=1,052,953 validation_targets=130,103 train_seconds=209.9 validation_seconds=15.3
restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch=1 loss=2.733343
ranked users=1,024/8,456
ranked users=2,048/8,456
ranked users=3,072/8,456
ranked users=4,096/8,456
ranked users=5,120/8,456
ranked users=6,144/8,456
ranked users=7,168/8,456
ranked users=8,192/8,456
ranked users=8,456/8,456
{
  "baseline": "yambda-windowed-sequence-two-tower-base",
  "stage": "validation",
  "output": "/app/solution/exp3_infonce_t1.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 315.468,
  "public_inputs_only": true,
  "architecture": {
    "family": "pure-windowed-sequence-two-tower",
    "sequence_training": "every-adjacent-target-within-recent-chronological-window",
    "sequence_encoder": "one-layer-GRU-dense-timestep-loss",
    "bptt_hidden_state": "carried-and-detached",
    "model_selection": "chronological-validation-BCE-early-stopping",
    "loss_execution": "gradient-accumulated-microbatches",
    "user_id_embedding": false,
    "user_mlp": "582-512-256-192",
    "item_mlp": "196-512-256-192",
    "normalization": "none",
    "score": "raw-dot-product",
    "objective": "sample-weighted-BCE-at-every-timestep",
    "negative_sampling": "24-uniform-plus-8-propensity-corrected-inbatch",
    "false_negative_filter": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "discovery-graded"
  },
  "config": {
    "bptt_steps": 100,
    "user_batch_size": 64,
    "embedding_dim": 192,
    "hidden_dim": 192,
    "user_hidden_1": 512,
    "user_hidden_2": 256,
    "item_hidden_1": 512,
    "item_hidden_2": 256,
    "dropout": 0.05,
    "epochs": 1,
    "learning_rate": 0.001,
    "weight_decay": 1e-05,
    "gradient_clip": 2.0,
    "loss_microbatch_size": 65536,
    "uniform_negatives": 24,
    "inbatch_negatives": 8,
    "inbatch_correction_power": 0.5,
    "inbatch_correction_min": 0.25,
    "inbatch_correction_max": 4.0,
    "negative_filter_scope": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "discovery-graded",
    "ordinary_target_weight": 0.25,
    "organic_strong_target_weight": 1.0,
    "organic_like_target_weight": 3.0,
    "discovery_horizon_days": 7,
    "validation_fraction": 0.1,
    "max_train_targets_per_user": 128,
    "max_validation_targets_per_user": 16,
    "early_stopping_patience": 1,
    "early_stopping_min_delta": 0.0001,
    "seed": 29,
    "loss_type": "infonce",
    "temperature": 1.0,
    "inbatch_sampling": "unique-targets"
  },
  "sequence_tokens": 20056329,
  "all_next_item_targets": 20047194,
  "selected_training_targets": 1052953,
  "selected_validation_targets": 130103,
  "discarded_old_targets": 18864138,
  "training_history": [
    {
      "epoch": 1.0,
      "loss": 2.9021913749375017,
      "positive_logit": 0.7543545090706908,
      "negative_logit": -0.5814579418972261,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.761820951409987,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 348780.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 209.94195712699957,
      "validation_loss": 2.7333433528989968,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 42129.5,
      "validation_seconds": 15.349176456999885
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.7673325538635254,
    "query_norm_std": 0.7159656286239624,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.7566349506378174,
    "item_norm_std": 0.8756554126739502
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
{
  "model": "/app/solution/exp3_infonce_t1.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.016056,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 2092
</untrusted_context>
70

read_file train_current_model.py

+41:01
Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Analyzing Loss Behavior

My current focus is on understanding the discrepancy in performance between InfoNCE and BCE. It appears InfoNCE's raw dot product and limited negatives may be causing representation collapse. I'm now re-evaluating BCE to pinpoint its strengths in this context.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Exploring BCE Stability

I'm now investigating why BCE might be outperforming InfoNCE. The key seems to be BCE's inherent stability, stemming from its direct calibration of positive versus negative predictions. This contrasts with InfoNCE's potential for representation collapse due to raw dot products and limited negatives.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 765,
  "start_line": 724,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 724-765 of 2223 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 766.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
        liked_cpu,
    )
    if np.any(invalid):
        raise RuntimeError("full-history negative resampling failed")
    return (
        torch.from_numpy(negatives).to(device),
        torch.from_numpy(correction).to(device),
    )


def draw_training_negatives(
    positive_items: torch.Tensor,
    known_history: torch.Tensor,
    liked_items: torch.Tensor,
    user_rows: np.ndarray,
    known_positive_packed: np.ndarray | None,
    prepared: SequenceData,
    config: Config,
    item_correction: torch.Tensor,
    generator: torch.Generator,
    device: torch.device,
) -> tuple[torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor]:
    if config.negative_filter_scope == "full-training-history":
        if known_positive_packed is None:
            raise RuntimeError("full-history negative filter was not built")
        return draw_full_history_filtered_negatives(
            positive_items,
            user_rows,
            liked_items,
            known_positive_packed,
            len(prepared.item_ids),
            config,
            item_correction,
            generator,
            device,
        )
    return base.draw_filtered_mixed_negatives(
        positive_items,
        known_history,
        liked_items,
        len(prepared.item_ids),
        config.uniform_negatives,
71

Test uniform-negatives 8 and inbatch-negatives 24 with discovery-graded weighting

+41:12
Recorded reasoning summary 36 words

Analyzing Negative Filter Scopes

I'm currently scrutinizing the implications of employing full-training-history as the negative_filter_scope. My attention is specifically directed at the draw_full_history_filtered_negatives function, and within that, a closer examination of the invalid_full_history_negatives subroutine is underway.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Refining Invalid Negative Logic

I'm now examining how known_positive_packed interacts with byte_columns and bit_columns to construct the known array. My focus is also on the subsequent logical OR operations that incorporate targets and liked_items to define invalid. I'll be cross-referencing this with build_known_positive_filter in train_current_model.py to ensure comprehensive coverage.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Investigating Training Counts

I'm now scrutinizing how training_counts is utilized within the build_known_positive logic. Specifically, I'm examining its role in the calculation of items and how it impacts the packed array construction, paying attention to the target_count to offset relationship.

Recorded reasoning summary 33 words

Exploring Training Counts Origin

I am now investigating the origin of partition.history_training_counts called in train_model. My focus is on how chronological_target_partition calculates history_training by subtracting validation from totals, and its interaction with max_train_targets_per_user.

Recorded reasoning summary 53 words

Confirming Known Positive Packing

I've confirmed that known_positive_packed indeed incorporates all user listening history from the training period. This means any sampled negative item present in this set is correctly identified and discarded as a false negative. My next step is to analyze the logic governing the selection of negatives that are sampled.

Recorded reasoning summary 47 words

Adjusting Negative Sampling Ratios

I'm now exploring the impact of altering the ratio between uniform and in-batch negatives. Specifically, I'm considering combinations like 8 uniform and 24 in-batch, or 16 and 16, to see how this affects training time and the model's exposure to harder negative examples.

Tool callrun_shell_commandTest uniform-negatives 8 and inbatch-negatives 24 with discovery-graded weighting Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Test uniform-negatives 8 and inbatch-negatives 24 with discovery-graded weighting",
  "command": "python /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --output /app/solution/exp4_u8_ib24.parquet \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --target-weighting discovery-graded \\\n  --uniform-negatives 8 \\\n  --inbatch-negatives 24 && python /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/exp4_u8_ib24.parquet"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: loaded full-sequence cache: tokens=20,056,329 targets=20,047,194
chronological BCE window: train=1,052,953 validation=130,103 selected=1,183,056 discarded_old_targets=18,864,138 all=20,047,194
inbatch correction: min=0.250 mean_on_targets=1.001 max=4.000
loaded organic-like outcomes: rows=301,527 users=7,526
grade-3 first-encounter targets=46,417 horizon_days=7
target weighting=discovery-graded min=0.250 mean=0.310 max=3.000
full-history false-negative filter: users=9,135 unique_user_items=5,524,275 bytes=34,256,250
epoch=1/1 batches=250 targets=987,417 batch_bce=0.563400 running_bce=0.568936 elapsed=169.8s
epoch=1/1 train_loss=0.56679 validation_loss=0.53532 pair_accuracy=0.692 train_targets=1,052,953 validation_targets=130,103 train_seconds=181.3 validation_seconds=12.4
restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch=1 loss=0.535323
ranked users=1,024/8,456
ranked users=2,048/8,456
ranked users=3,072/8,456
ranked users=4,096/8,456
ranked users=5,120/8,456
ranked users=6,144/8,456
ranked users=7,168/8,456
ranked users=8,192/8,456
ranked users=8,456/8,456
{
  "baseline": "yambda-windowed-sequence-two-tower-base",
  "stage": "validation",
  "output": "/app/solution/exp4_u8_ib24.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 286.978,
  "public_inputs_only": true,
  "architecture": {
    "family": "pure-windowed-sequence-two-tower",
    "sequence_training": "every-adjacent-target-within-recent-chronological-window",
    "sequence_encoder": "one-layer-GRU-dense-timestep-loss",
    "bptt_hidden_state": "carried-and-detached",
    "model_selection": "chronological-validation-BCE-early-stopping",
    "loss_execution": "gradient-accumulated-microbatches",
    "user_id_embedding": false,
    "user_mlp": "582-512-256-192",
    "item_mlp": "196-512-256-192",
    "normalization": "none",
    "score": "raw-dot-product",
    "objective": "sample-weighted-BCE-at-every-timestep",
    "negative_sampling": "24-uniform-plus-8-propensity-corrected-inbatch",
    "false_negative_filter": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "discovery-graded"
  },
  "config": {
    "bptt_steps": 100,
    "user_batch_size": 64,
    "embedding_dim": 192,
    "hidden_dim": 192,
    "user_hidden_1": 512,
    "user_hidden_2": 256,
    "item_hidden_1": 512,
    "item_hidden_2": 256,
    "dropout": 0.05,
    "epochs": 1,
    "learning_rate": 0.001,
    "weight_decay": 1e-05,
    "gradient_clip": 2.0,
    "loss_microbatch_size": 65536,
    "uniform_negatives": 8,
    "inbatch_negatives": 24,
    "inbatch_correction_power": 0.5,
    "inbatch_correction_min": 0.25,
    "inbatch_correction_max": 4.0,
    "negative_filter_scope": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "discovery-graded",
    "ordinary_target_weight": 0.25,
    "organic_strong_target_weight": 1.0,
    "organic_like_target_weight": 3.0,
    "discovery_horizon_days": 7,
    "validation_fraction": 0.1,
    "max_train_targets_per_user": 128,
    "max_validation_targets_per_user": 16,
    "early_stopping_patience": 1,
    "early_stopping_min_delta": 0.0001,
    "seed": 29,
    "loss_type": "bce",
    "temperature": 1.0,
    "inbatch_sampling": "unique-targets"
  },
  "sequence_tokens": 20056329,
  "all_next_item_targets": 20047194,
  "selected_training_targets": 1052953,
  "selected_validation_targets": 130103,
  "discarded_old_targets": 18864138,
  "training_history": [
    {
      "epoch": 1.0,
      "loss": 0.5667940349984629,
      "positive_logit": 0.6244476271847336,
      "negative_logit": -0.37425631376128593,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.6924440715777437,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 348780.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 181.34427809499994,
      "validation_loss": 0.5353229273367104,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 42129.5,
      "validation_seconds": 12.429464327000005
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.7650986909866333,
    "query_norm_std": 0.9053598046302795,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.7711832523345947,
    "item_norm_std": 0.778113842010498
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
{
  "model": "/app/solution/exp4_u8_ib24.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.018846,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 2141
</untrusted_context>
72

Test 32 uniform negatives and 0 inbatch negatives

+46:18
Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Analyzing Performance Degradation

I'm investigating a puzzling performance drop. While training time improved, both NDCG and pair accuracy have decreased significantly. My current hypothesis centers on the interaction between inbatch_negatives and uniform_negatives, as the increase in negative logits appears correlated with these metrics' decline.

Tool callrun_shell_commandTest 32 uniform negatives and 0 inbatch negatives Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --output /app/solution/exp5_u32_ib0.parquet \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --target-weighting discovery-graded \\\n  --uniform-negatives 32 \\\n  --inbatch-negatives 0 && python /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/exp5_u32_ib0.parquet",
  "description": "Test 32 uniform negatives and 0 inbatch negatives"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: loaded full-sequence cache: tokens=20,056,329 targets=20,047,194
chronological BCE window: train=1,052,953 validation=130,103 selected=1,183,056 discarded_old_targets=18,864,138 all=20,047,194
inbatch correction: min=0.250 mean_on_targets=1.001 max=4.000
loaded organic-like outcomes: rows=301,527 users=7,526
grade-3 first-encounter targets=46,417 horizon_days=7
target weighting=discovery-graded min=0.250 mean=0.310 max=3.000
full-history false-negative filter: users=9,135 unique_user_items=5,524,275 bytes=34,256,250
epoch=1/1 batches=250 targets=987,417 batch_bce=0.542264 running_bce=0.527347 elapsed=181.8s
epoch=1/1 train_loss=0.52544 validation_loss=0.48448 pair_accuracy=0.798 train_targets=1,052,953 validation_targets=130,103 train_seconds=193.6 validation_seconds=16.2
restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch=1 loss=0.484480
ranked users=1,024/8,456
ranked users=2,048/8,456
ranked users=3,072/8,456
ranked users=4,096/8,456
ranked users=5,120/8,456
ranked users=6,144/8,456
ranked users=7,168/8,456
ranked users=8,192/8,456
ranked users=8,456/8,456
{
  "baseline": "yambda-windowed-sequence-two-tower-base",
  "stage": "validation",
  "output": "/app/solution/exp5_u32_ib0.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 301.225,
  "public_inputs_only": true,
  "architecture": {
    "family": "pure-windowed-sequence-two-tower",
    "sequence_training": "every-adjacent-target-within-recent-chronological-window",
    "sequence_encoder": "one-layer-GRU-dense-timestep-loss",
    "bptt_hidden_state": "carried-and-detached",
    "model_selection": "chronological-validation-BCE-early-stopping",
    "loss_execution": "gradient-accumulated-microbatches",
    "user_id_embedding": false,
    "user_mlp": "582-512-256-192",
    "item_mlp": "196-512-256-192",
    "normalization": "none",
    "score": "raw-dot-product",
    "objective": "sample-weighted-BCE-at-every-timestep",
    "negative_sampling": "24-uniform-plus-8-propensity-corrected-inbatch",
    "false_negative_filter": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "discovery-graded"
  },
  "config": {
    "bptt_steps": 100,
    "user_batch_size": 64,
    "embedding_dim": 192,
    "hidden_dim": 192,
    "user_hidden_1": 512,
    "user_hidden_2": 256,
    "item_hidden_1": 512,
    "item_hidden_2": 256,
    "dropout": 0.05,
    "epochs": 1,
    "learning_rate": 0.001,
    "weight_decay": 1e-05,
    "gradient_clip": 2.0,
    "loss_microbatch_size": 65536,
    "uniform_negatives": 32,
    "inbatch_negatives": 0,
    "inbatch_correction_power": 0.5,
    "inbatch_correction_min": 0.25,
    "inbatch_correction_max": 4.0,
    "negative_filter_scope": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "discovery-graded",
    "ordinary_target_weight": 0.25,
    "organic_strong_target_weight": 1.0,
    "organic_like_target_weight": 3.0,
    "discovery_horizon_days": 7,
    "validation_fraction": 0.1,
    "max_train_targets_per_user": 128,
    "max_validation_targets_per_user": 16,
    "early_stopping_patience": 1,
    "early_stopping_min_delta": 0.0001,
    "seed": 29,
    "loss_type": "bce",
    "temperature": 1.0,
    "inbatch_sampling": "unique-targets"
  },
  "sequence_tokens": 20056329,
  "all_next_item_targets": 20047194,
  "selected_training_targets": 1052953,
  "selected_validation_targets": 130103,
  "discarded_old_targets": 18864138,
  "training_history": [
    {
      "epoch": 1.0,
      "loss": 0.5254377371913913,
      "positive_logit": 0.9194933282592246,
      "negative_logit": -0.8096884129139443,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.7977172592223964,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 348780.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 193.605077661,
      "validation_loss": 0.4844796389366467,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 42129.5,
      "validation_seconds": 16.17138235099992
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.4759684801101685,
    "query_norm_std": 0.6978867053985596,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.9009125232696533,
    "item_norm_std": 0.8285666108131409
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
{
  "model": "/app/solution/exp5_u32_ib0.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.022328,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 2190
</untrusted_context>
73

Test inbatch-sampling batch-frequency

+51:34
Recorded reasoning summary 32 words

Testing Negative Sampling

My recent experiments show that a mix of in-batch and uniform negative sampling improves NDCG. Specifically, 8 in-batch and 24 uniform negatives yielded the best result, outperforming other combinations.

Tool callrun_shell_commandTest inbatch-sampling batch-frequency Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --output /app/solution/exp6_bfreq.parquet \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --target-weighting discovery-graded \\\n  --inbatch-sampling batch-frequency \\\n  --uniform-negatives 24 \\\n  --inbatch-negatives 8 && python /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/exp6_bfreq.parquet",
  "description": "Test inbatch-sampling batch-frequency"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: loaded full-sequence cache: tokens=20,056,329 targets=20,047,194
chronological BCE window: train=1,052,953 validation=130,103 selected=1,183,056 discarded_old_targets=18,864,138 all=20,047,194
inbatch correction: min=0.250 mean_on_targets=1.001 max=4.000
loaded organic-like outcomes: rows=301,527 users=7,526
grade-3 first-encounter targets=46,417 horizon_days=7
target weighting=discovery-graded min=0.250 mean=0.310 max=3.000
full-history false-negative filter: users=9,135 unique_user_items=5,524,275 bytes=34,256,250
epoch=1/1 batches=250 targets=987,417 batch_bce=0.556322 running_bce=0.550833 elapsed=176.9s
epoch=1/1 train_loss=0.54868 validation_loss=0.50483 pair_accuracy=0.753 train_targets=1,052,953 validation_targets=130,103 train_seconds=189.0 validation_seconds=15.0
restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch=1 loss=0.504830
ranked users=1,024/8,456
ranked users=2,048/8,456
ranked users=3,072/8,456
ranked users=4,096/8,456
ranked users=5,120/8,456
ranked users=6,144/8,456
ranked users=7,168/8,456
ranked users=8,192/8,456
ranked users=8,456/8,456
{
  "baseline": "yambda-windowed-sequence-two-tower-base",
  "stage": "validation",
  "output": "/app/solution/exp6_bfreq.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 295.765,
  "public_inputs_only": true,
  "architecture": {
    "family": "pure-windowed-sequence-two-tower",
    "sequence_training": "every-adjacent-target-within-recent-chronological-window",
    "sequence_encoder": "one-layer-GRU-dense-timestep-loss",
    "bptt_hidden_state": "carried-and-detached",
    "model_selection": "chronological-validation-BCE-early-stopping",
    "loss_execution": "gradient-accumulated-microbatches",
    "user_id_embedding": false,
    "user_mlp": "582-512-256-192",
    "item_mlp": "196-512-256-192",
    "normalization": "none",
    "score": "raw-dot-product",
    "objective": "sample-weighted-BCE-at-every-timestep",
    "negative_sampling": "24-uniform-plus-8-propensity-corrected-inbatch",
    "false_negative_filter": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "discovery-graded"
  },
  "config": {
    "bptt_steps": 100,
    "user_batch_size": 64,
    "embedding_dim": 192,
    "hidden_dim": 192,
    "user_hidden_1": 512,
    "user_hidden_2": 256,
    "item_hidden_1": 512,
    "item_hidden_2": 256,
    "dropout": 0.05,
    "epochs": 1,
    "learning_rate": 0.001,
    "weight_decay": 1e-05,
    "gradient_clip": 2.0,
    "loss_microbatch_size": 65536,
    "uniform_negatives": 24,
    "inbatch_negatives": 8,
    "inbatch_correction_power": 0.5,
    "inbatch_correction_min": 0.25,
    "inbatch_correction_max": 4.0,
    "negative_filter_scope": "full-training-history",
    "target_weighting": "discovery-graded",
    "ordinary_target_weight": 0.25,
    "organic_strong_target_weight": 1.0,
    "organic_like_target_weight": 3.0,
    "discovery_horizon_days": 7,
    "validation_fraction": 0.1,
    "max_train_targets_per_user": 128,
    "max_validation_targets_per_user": 16,
    "early_stopping_patience": 1,
    "early_stopping_min_delta": 0.0001,
    "seed": 29,
    "loss_type": "bce",
    "temperature": 1.0,
    "inbatch_sampling": "batch-frequency"
  },
  "sequence_tokens": 20056329,
  "all_next_item_targets": 20047194,
  "selected_training_targets": 1052953,
  "selected_validation_targets": 130103,
  "discarded_old_targets": 18864138,
  "training_history": [
    {
      "epoch": 1.0,
      "loss": 0.5486822848377702,
      "positive_logit": 0.7235536047729897,
      "negative_logit": -0.6189869582545096,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.7531304816074411,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 348780.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 188.995452786,
      "validation_loss": 0.5048298135501154,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 42129.5,
      "validation_seconds": 14.992467433000002
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.639589548110962,
    "query_norm_std": 0.8099101781845093,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.9633010625839233,
    "item_norm_std": 0.8413249254226685
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
{
  "model": "/app/solution/exp6_bfreq.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.01834,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 2241
</untrusted_context>
74

read_file train_current_model.py

+56:45
Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Exploring Unique Targets

My recent analysis reveals that unique-targets with inbatch correction outperforms batch-frequency, achieving a score of 0.01834. I'm now delving into why the 24 uniform and 8 inbatch configuration for unique-targets is proving so effective.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "start_line": 915,
  "end_line": 990,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 915-990 of 2223 total lines.
Action: To read more of the file, you can use the 'start_line' and 'end_line' parameters in a subsequent 'read_file' call. For example, to read the next section of the file, use start_line: 991.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    window_starts = retained_target_window_starts(totals, validation, training)
    return TargetPartition(
        window_starts=window_starts,
        training_counts=training,
        validation_counts=validation,
        history_training_counts=history_training,
    )


def load_organic_like_outcomes(
    public: Path, stage: str, item_ids: np.ndarray
) -> dict[int, dict[int, np.ndarray]]:
    """Load mapped organic-like timestamps from public fitting history."""
    prefixes = ("train",) if stage == "validation" else ("train", "val")
    frames = [
        pd.read_parquet(
            public / "data" / f"{prefix}_likes.parquet",
            columns=["uid", "timestamp", "item_id", "is_organic"],
        )
        for prefix in prefixes
    ]
    likes = pd.concat(frames, ignore_index=True)
    likes = likes[likes.is_organic == 1].copy()
    mapped = pd.Index(item_ids).get_indexer(
        likes.item_id.to_numpy(dtype=np.int64)
    )
    likes = likes.loc[mapped >= 0, ["uid", "timestamp"]].copy()
    likes["item"] = mapped[mapped >= 0].astype(np.int32, copy=False)
    likes = likes.sort_values(["uid", "item", "timestamp"], kind="stable")
    nested: dict[int, dict[int, list[int]]] = {}
    for raw_uid, raw_timestamp, raw_item in likes.itertuples(
        index=False, name=None
    ):
        nested.setdefault(int(raw_uid), {}).setdefault(int(raw_item), []).append(
            int(raw_timestamp)
        )
    result = {
        uid: {
            item: np.asarray(timestamps, dtype=np.int64)
            for item, timestamps in items.items()
        }
        for uid, items in nested.items()
    }
    log(
        f"loaded organic-like outcomes: rows={len(likes):,} "
        f"users={len(result):,}"
    )
    return result


def build_target_weights(
    public: Path,
    stage: str,
    prepared: SequenceData,
    training_counts: np.ndarray,
    config: Config,
) -> np.ndarray:
    """Build nonzero per-token weights without dropping adjacent targets."""
    if config.target_weighting == "uniform":
        weights = np.ones(len(prepared.sequence_items), dtype=np.float32)
    else:
        weights = np.full(
            len(prepared.sequence_items),
            config.ordinary_target_weight,
            dtype=np.float32,
        )
        organic_strong = (
            (prepared.event_features[:, 0] > 0.5)
            & (prepared.event_features[:, 1] >= 0.8)
        )
        weights[organic_strong] = config.organic_strong_target_weight
        if config.target_weighting == "discovery-graded":
            like_outcomes = load_organic_like_outcomes(
                public, stage, prepared.item_ids
            )
            history_end = (
75

Final response

+57:52
Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Refining Feature Weighting

I'm currently zeroing in on how to best assign weights based on specific feature thresholds. My focus is on refining the logic within build_target_weights to accurately capture 'organic_strong' instances by adjusting the bounds for the first two event features.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Adjusting Organic Weighting

I'm refining the logic to specifically capture 'organic_strong' cases. My current efforts are focused on tweaking the bounds within build_target_weights for the initial event features, aiming for a more precise assignment of weights based on these thresholds.

Recorded reasoning summary 50 words

Evaluating Novelty Impact

I'm analyzing how item novelty within sequences affects target weighting, specifically when an item appears for the first time. My current thought process involves examining the timestamps and horizon to determine the appropriate weight for these novel occurrences, considering their recency relative to training and history boundaries.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Adjusting Organic Weights

I'm re-evaluating the organic_like_target_weight and ordinary_target_weight parameters. Considering the NDCG gain associated with 'grade 3' (organic-like) instances, I'm exploring increasing this weight significantly. I'm also contemplating decreasing the weight for 'ordinary' instances to encourage a stronger focus on true discovery targets.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Investigating Negative Sampling

I'm focusing on the training objective's use of negative examples. My current thoughts revolve around diagnosing limitations in the existing negative sampling strategy and exploring potential improvements, specifically considering an increase from the current 32 negatives to 48.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Exploring Negative Sampling Efficiency

I'm reassessing the impact of negative sampling numbers. It seems increasing uniform negatives from 24 to 48 or 64 won't significantly affect training time because the candidate catalog encoding already covers almost all items. The core computation increase is minor compared to MLP passes.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Analyzing Negative Loss Calculation

I'm examining the corrected_negative_loss function, specifically how it incorporates positive and negative logits within BCE. My current focus is on understanding the role of correction and weights in the in-batch negative sampling, and how this relates to the score_target_microbatches calculation.

Recorded reasoning summary 47 words

Revising Loss Calculation

I'm reassessing the loss calculation, specifically the averaging of positive and negative losses. The current approach averages one positive example's loss with the average loss of 32 negatives. I'm considering weighting the negative loss more heavily to address potential class imbalance and improve learning.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Adjusting Loss Weighting

I'm investigating why negative examples aren't pushing logits down sufficiently. It appears the loss calculation gives the positive example 32 times more gradient influence than any single negative, leading to a poor prediction probability for random negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 55 words

Increasing Negative Loss Weight

I'm realizing the current loss calculation unfairly favors positive examples. By not dividing the negative loss by the number of negatives, or by applying a multiplier, I can force the model to significantly reduce the logits for negative items. This will directly penalize false positives and better separate positives from negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Refining Negative Sampling

I'm reassessing how negative examples are selected and utilized within the training objective. My focus is on diagnosing current limitations and exploring enhancements to the negative sampling strategy to improve performance within our CPU constraints.

Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Analyzing Data Inclusion

I'm examining the data feeding into the model. It seems prepared.sequence_items might exclude user likes, and liked_items may only consider a subset of active likes, potentially skewing the learning process by not fully capturing positive interactions.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Examining Hard Negatives

I'm now considering the concept of hard negatives, particularly how they relate to popular items being predicted for all users. My focus is on understanding why this occurs and how the candidate catalog's popularity distribution might be contributing to this uniform prediction behavior during training.

Recorded reasoning summary 51 words

Sampling Hard Negatives

I'm realizing that my current negative sampling strategy isn't effectively penalizing high dot products for popular items. The model rarely encounters these popular items as negatives, and even then, their loss is heavily downweighted. I need to explore sampling negatives from a popularity distribution or increasing in-batch negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Adjusting Correction Factors

I'm re-examining the inbatch_correction_power in corrected_negative_loss, which was incorrectly set to 0.5 in exp4_u8_ib24. This led to rare items being over-weighted and popular items under-weighted, negatively impacting NDCG. I need to correct this to properly balance the influence of in-batch negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 50 words

Analyzing Loss Calculation Terms

I'm dissecting the loss calculation formula, specifically the terms contributing to the final loss. I've realized the uniform negative term effectively sums the raw values, and the in-batch term calculates a weighted average. This is crucial for understanding how each negative type influences the overall loss.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Correcting Loss Averaging

I've identified a critical flaw: my loss calculation incorrectly averages negative losses instead of summing them. Standard BCE sums negative losses, but mine divides by the total number of negatives. This severely underweights the penalty for negative examples, allowing incorrect predictions to persist.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Increasing Negative Weighting

I've realized the loss calculation gives positive examples significantly more weight than individual negatives. My current focus is on testing different multipliers to increase the negative loss's influence, potentially by adjusting the weight of each negative example relative to the positive.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Scaling Negative Influence

I'm considering introducing a negative_weight_scale parameter to the loss function to amplify the penalty for negative examples. Testing values like 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0 could significantly push down negative logits and improve NDCG, as seen in prior experiments.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Revising Negative Sampling Strategy

I'm analyzing the substantial CPU time dedicated to drawing negatives and its impact on training. My focus is on identifying inefficiencies within draw_full_history_filtered_negatives and improving the strategy to fit within our existing computational constraints.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Correcting Negative Loss Calculation

I've identified a critical flaw where negative losses are averaged rather than summed. This severely underweights their penalty, allowing incorrect predictions to persist. I am now exploring how to scale their influence to better penalize false positives and improve NDCG.

Recorded reasoning summary 59 words

Optimizing Negative Item Processing

I'm analyzing the computational overhead introduced by processing negative items, particularly the boolean operations and duplicate checks which create large intermediate tensors and loops. The repeated encoding of a large number of unique items in score + backward also significantly impacts training time. I am exploring a redesigned negative sampling strategy to mitigate these inefficiencies.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Increasing Training Epochs

I've discovered the model was only trained for a single epoch in the baseline due to computational constraints. Crucially, validation loss was still decreasing, indicating it hadn't converged. I'm now exploring the impact of increasing epochs to 2 or 3 to allow for further learning.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Optimizing Negative Drawing

I'm realizing that the majority of training time is spent drawing and encoding negatives. A batch of 5600 targets doesn't need 134,400 independent uniform draws. I'm exploring sampling a shared pool of uniform negatives for the entire batch to drastically reduce processing time.

Recorded reasoning summary 53 words

Speeding Up Training

I've identified a massive bottleneck in drawing and encoding negative examples. By implementing a shared pool of uniform negatives per batch, I can reduce the number of items to encode from ~30,000 to ~2,000, resulting in a potential 7x overall speedup. This approach aligns with standard two-tower retrieval system practices.

Recorded reasoning summary 53 words

Improving Negative Sampling Efficiency

I'm realizing that the current practice of drawing and encoding negatives independently for each target is incredibly inefficient. By implementing a shared pool of uniform negatives for the entire batch, I can drastically reduce the number of items needing encoding, potentially achieving a significant speedup without compromising model performance.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Diagnosing Sampling Inefficiencies

I'm realizing the current negative sampling is a massive CPU bottleneck. Drawing and encoding individual negatives for each target, especially with the extensive rejection sampling and propensity corrections, is consuming the entire budget and limiting training to just one epoch. I need a more efficient strategy.

Recorded session usage
[
  {
    "messageId": "21174b20-fe6b-4bbb-8795-7b473ce5d7fd",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:10.785Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 10359,
      "output": 91,
      "cached": 0,
      "thoughts": 445,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 10895
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "276599d5-ee28-4eed-808c-339648fdd0e2",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:12.560Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 10965,
      "output": 19,
      "cached": 7659,
      "thoughts": 39,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 11023
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "3a56a376-b28f-4fc8-84e9-6fe6fa7a5cca",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:15.416Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 11061,
      "output": 57,
      "cached": 7649,
      "thoughts": 135,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 11253
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "da37ccf1-1ea0-488c-9d90-13ea7d024b16",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:18.215Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 12282,
      "output": 56,
      "cached": 7684,
      "thoughts": 123,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 12461
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "ed82eeaf-ab0d-44c7-bf89-0ea9beacf958",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:21.615Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 12616,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 7682,
      "thoughts": 32,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 12695
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "c4617b43-fe6d-4fbe-b82d-3da0fa28bf22",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:23.666Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 12850,
      "output": 46,
      "cached": 7676,
      "thoughts": 58,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 12954
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "c8d0a8a9-a832-4c9d-9725-098637fb5e1d",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:25.485Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 13040,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 7669,
      "thoughts": 12,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 13099
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "6e18ff80-9460-45ef-a39f-7c2add5d925a",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:27.455Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 13152,
      "output": 59,
      "cached": 7659,
      "thoughts": 45,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 13256
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "91422ce8-1268-4426-8bff-88243cc585d1",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:32.439Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 13301,
      "output": 37,
      "cached": 7650,
      "thoughts": 78,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 13416
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "8a88092d-4712-4d05-967e-713cb771eb05",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:34.095Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 14968,
      "output": 37,
      "cached": 11542,
      "thoughts": 16,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 15021
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "02802866-d19a-4b35-9bec-e828241a10c5",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:36.463Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 17303,
      "output": 57,
      "cached": 11621,
      "thoughts": 83,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 17443
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "dcc3688f-b717-4698-be95-0d3150e1c03d",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:38.843Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 17509,
      "output": 76,
      "cached": 15482,
      "thoughts": 126,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 17711
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "bdbfe9da-7208-41a2-bb1e-28eeac7995d0",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:11:31.488Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 19948,
      "output": 49,
      "cached": 7784,
      "thoughts": 36,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 20033
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "bbf9844a-7ad5-4428-9562-e499822f9328",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:11:39.776Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 20119,
      "output": 28,
      "cached": 15555,
      "thoughts": 182,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 20329
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "ba0f335e-a51a-4a0f-9c80-8dcd46df789c",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:11:42.931Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 21290,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 15581,
      "thoughts": 224,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 21559
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "e07af6fe-e2de-4239-979d-36b4ad8adbf6",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:11.094Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 23313,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 19538,
      "thoughts": 32,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 23390
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "6467965d-7949-4e55-acde-b88379fe2ee3",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:21.588Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 24786,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 19572,
      "thoughts": 27,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 24858
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "22a8ae24-c2c9-4822-9701-5849c8cd776f",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:23.768Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 27354,
      "output": 46,
      "cached": 23563,
      "thoughts": 27,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 27427
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "6e497757-0123-478d-b045-042d88fe5418",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:27.661Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 30791,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 23653,
      "thoughts": 18,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 30856
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "12a9d560-c9f4-48f3-b942-dc87c53a14e6",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:32.896Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 34351,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 27683,
      "thoughts": 32,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 34430
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "72fd3994-f78e-400b-a73f-3c8a8da0dc78",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:34.955Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 38431,
      "output": 43,
      "cached": 31733,
      "thoughts": 49,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 38523
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "3e876b1b-2a43-4a75-acc6-3a2adf94ac61",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:37.247Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 39604,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 35710,
      "thoughts": 27,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 39678
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "59a3c277-0b9c-4bf9-a878-453300ec12b5",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:40.903Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 42310,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 0,
      "thoughts": 93,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 42448
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "06f477f6-d5b8-4fab-9b41-4c1dbf2328a0",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:44.731Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 43181,
      "output": 29,
      "cached": 39735,
      "thoughts": 270,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 43480
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "f9281e83-29b2-44f8-8773-c499299c3583",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:50.685Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 43670,
      "output": 28,
      "cached": 39725,
      "thoughts": 655,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 44353
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "cbac00b4-1d46-46b7-9a03-26be67e1936d",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:13:09.873Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 45203,
      "output": 33,
      "cached": 39744,
      "thoughts": 3002,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 48238
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "4fa14400-4d1e-4f20-90e0-6369b36f0d65",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:14:27.845Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 49520,
      "output": 75,
      "cached": 43809,
      "thoughts": 4029,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 53624
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "02275584-9aee-4afb-a02f-5a5051754704",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:14:31.931Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 54100,
      "output": 44,
      "cached": 47881,
      "thoughts": 34,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 54178
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "599293ec-7c53-4583-a6ad-328b7f7504ef",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:14:35.011Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 54763,
      "output": 120,
      "cached": 51864,
      "thoughts": 162,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 55045
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "7272a8e2-25fb-45e3-bd5c-3a5bf3d21682",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:14:44.678Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 55187,
      "output": 223,
      "cached": 51850,
      "thoughts": 37,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 55447
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "2a09cd83-8352-4fda-8cf0-e8b0b1901bf7",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:14:58.670Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 55733,
      "output": 31,
      "cached": 51840,
      "thoughts": 131,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 55895
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "ed1a78d9-610f-4cc2-bf21-cc3720c8c217",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:15:02.639Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 57364,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 51856,
      "thoughts": 38,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 57447
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "6136f07d-09d3-4216-9e01-57c4c3ece8dd",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:15:04.727Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 58376,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 55846,
      "thoughts": 30,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 58451
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "2a782a2f-fe33-4d66-ad4e-376fc2997ed0",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:15:07.787Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 60040,
      "output": 95,
      "cached": 55863,
      "thoughts": 90,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 60225
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "3a583bf0-7f90-4429-bc3f-db5227cfdc09",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:16:14.239Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 61257,
      "output": 174,
      "cached": 55869,
      "thoughts": 1204,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 62635
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "faa0c831-c1dd-4d0c-b30c-88fdeb670696",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:16:20.277Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 63389,
      "output": 349,
      "cached": 59887,
      "thoughts": 113,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 63851
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "5a5633eb-9f3a-4879-b508-fd57cf7d7e58",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:16:26.533Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 63917,
      "output": 355,
      "cached": 59876,
      "thoughts": 26,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 64298
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "8c9fcc38-eab5-490c-b569-e05421b4e1ae",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:17:42.003Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 64466,
      "output": 256,
      "cached": 59865,
      "thoughts": 4799,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 69521
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "93e623da-9490-4e3b-9019-d97581855a78",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:17:48.031Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 69589,
      "output": 260,
      "cached": 63954,
      "thoughts": 22,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 69871
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "153b63cc-1b40-47ff-8bde-f9753501e2ad",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:19:06.197Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 70205,
      "output": 119,
      "cached": 67941,
      "thoughts": 11308,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 81632
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "3d7d40d1-41f6-4979-9ee7-f38412c2b5d7",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:19:35.487Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 81682,
      "output": 32,
      "cached": 68152,
      "thoughts": 901,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 82615
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "cc089a00-5a28-4a6c-9bc4-b5d038889c41",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:19:49.246Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 82665,
      "output": 1047,
      "cached": 80175,
      "thoughts": 874,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 84586
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "a0e569df-fca7-4fdc-9f08-5f1703298e5b",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:19:59.976Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 84813,
      "output": 235,
      "cached": 80194,
      "thoughts": 156,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 85204
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "c5ea55ca-352c-4699-8389-0fab945c57b9",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:20:18.755Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 85273,
      "output": 217,
      "cached": 80179,
      "thoughts": 1467,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 86957
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "fa9247f2-8c1d-4033-a148-05d182f8d096",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:20:40.486Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 87152,
      "output": 93,
      "cached": 84198,
      "thoughts": 2412,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 89657
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "e5bc63ad-a08c-4629-9272-1a0bb2a0dded",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:25:59.366Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 91516,
      "output": 46,
      "cached": 0,
      "thoughts": 15,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 91577
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "80e3ed84-7da5-456e-9387-72ed00128b09",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:26:08.195Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 91664,
      "output": 128,
      "cached": 88250,
      "thoughts": 130,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 91922
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "3946ac64-3242-4c11-9d42-d48bfc38b77a",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:31:37.316Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 93892,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 8024,
      "thoughts": 417,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 94356
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "64b90598-5d80-457d-a94e-5bf9e7a84bc1",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:31:39.431Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 95065,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 92281,
      "thoughts": 71,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 95183
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "a1f08d03-8b0f-4b16-b88e-07c7b3fe3050",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:31:55.311Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 96304,
      "output": 43,
      "cached": 92281,
      "thoughts": 2095,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 98442
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "1c8632ae-2715-4389-bb85-4e1dd83fb413",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:06.328Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 98887,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 96319,
      "thoughts": 117,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 99049
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "2dbefa2e-eb08-4fa6-bcdf-a958841ecd34",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:21.410Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 99811,
      "output": 320,
      "cached": 96313,
      "thoughts": 2040,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 102171
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "42a59fe5-eb8a-4c56-9591-90786ea53084",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:30.372Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 102224,
      "output": 43,
      "cached": 96335,
      "thoughts": 338,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 102605
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "38549a0b-9329-422a-862b-ab53485131fd",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:33.079Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 103123,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 100342,
      "thoughts": 99,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 103267
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "6f333183-c2ff-4a6e-ba83-08671473aadc",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:36.890Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 103583,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 100326,
      "thoughts": 26,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 103656
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "001b770b-076f-49c7-b89f-da0c19cb586a",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:42.907Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 104133,
      "output": 43,
      "cached": 100312,
      "thoughts": 666,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 104842
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "6548ffcd-71c3-4bce-8dad-d6aaef243340",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:45.357Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 105339,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 100311,
      "thoughts": 26,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 105412
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "875a6f38-f1c1-4835-958c-41d6d544b629",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:33:00.066Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 106854,
      "output": 177,
      "cached": 104329,
      "thoughts": 1292,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 108323
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "56069d43-e724-49a5-8485-02489563436f",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:33:02.694Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 108474,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 104329,
      "thoughts": 86,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 108605
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "52df9c86-48e0-4e98-be44-1aa4c1226b99",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:33:12.221Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 109065,
      "output": 741,
      "cached": 104316,
      "thoughts": 430,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 110236
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "3ea1d4a6-6dfe-4d5f-92ce-a0baa91aecc8",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:33:14.387Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 110698,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 108328,
      "thoughts": 54,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 110799
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "3e2e6bfd-ad3f-4e5c-bc52-45000e576517",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:33:21.041Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 111218,
      "output": 599,
      "cached": 108314,
      "thoughts": 400,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 112217
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "531fb16f-7d93-45e3-a632-92317da528a4",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:33:23.782Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 112670,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 108310,
      "thoughts": 46,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 112763
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "73c23d40-64f9-4d5a-b1d8-986712c63ff5",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:33:38.304Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 114047,
      "output": 1941,
      "cached": 108313,
      "thoughts": 267,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 116255
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "90651f45-7a68-4cde-99ac-71ddb181408d",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:33:42.105Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 116982,
      "output": 148,
      "cached": 112351,
      "thoughts": 180,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 117310
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "63c1c3f0-7a67-4995-b490-04f673373828",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:39:14.072Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 119311,
      "output": 167,
      "cached": 8026,
      "thoughts": 146,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 119624
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "940b3aa0-2e4f-44e4-9559-4718df9ea6d6",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:39:25.748Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 120031,
      "output": 152,
      "cached": 116374,
      "thoughts": 367,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 120550
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "576b861a-f25e-4601-b0e3-e1781a295925",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:44:57.638Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 122559,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 8027,
      "thoughts": 560,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 123164
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "e830e949-dfe0-4844-9e3e-2d6141573265",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:45:09.171Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 123605,
      "output": 169,
      "cached": 120408,
      "thoughts": 1682,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 125456
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "c3aa895e-edd1-49fa-9c7c-7b1a81178c1d",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:50:14.978Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 127468,
      "output": 160,
      "cached": 0,
      "thoughts": 296,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 127924
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "39661c4f-ce9f-4eef-98bb-204ea0414789",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:55:30.423Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 129930,
      "output": 159,
      "cached": 8031,
      "thoughts": 191,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 130280
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "fc0491c8-89b7-4caa-8152-a69a53cc7d84",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T03:00:41.712Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 132277,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 0,
      "thoughts": 221,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 132543
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "8525ab57-27eb-4824-aa2f-30a8893bee6a",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T03:01:48.357Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 133434,
      "output": 134,
      "cached": 128528,
      "thoughts": 8331,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 141899
    }
  }
]
About this recording

The full recorded conversation: task prompt, agent messages, thinking text when available, tool inputs and outputs, and harness context. Empty thinking entries are labeled unavailable, not reconstructed from tool calls. Disclosures change the view; they do not shorten the content. Any truncation already present in tool output is preserved.

Steps follow the recorded model messages and reasoning events. Tool results appear with their originating call. Elapsed time starts with the first recorded event and excludes verification.

Attempt
gemini-3-8-flash-high-case1-r04-b9049e57
Recorded model
gemini-3.8-flash
Harness version
0.61.0
Session
fef8181d-136b-4477-b02c-be68055bea83
Source SHA-256
3e358310a3c518a3bee2c1eb8e9e5e13fcde45255ce2175ec62f67fe539025f8

Session bookkeeping and encrypted reasoning or signatures are excluded from the reading export. The harness’s system prompt is not present in this session archive.