Verimium
Back to task results

Agent trace

Production two-tower improvement gemini-3-8-flash-high-10

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

This recording includes 222 readable reasoning summaries, shown in full below.

Agent
gemini-3.8-flash · Gemini CLI · high effort
Recorded conversation
57:45 · 95 steps
Private reward
Not recorded · Invalid submission
Attempt cost
$1.71
  • 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

+00:04
Recorded reasoning summary 31 words

Processing Task Parameters

I am carefully reviewing the task details to grasp the environment, requirements, and constraints fully. My immediate next step is to initiate the narrative flow by calling update_topic.

Recorded reasoning summary 45 words

Defining Task Scope

I've analyzed the core deliverables: a submission file, the training script with its dependencies, and a README detailing changes and performance. My current focus is on understanding the production pipeline's constraints, particularly the two-tower serving and read-only environment, before proceeding to strategy.

Tool callupdate_topicTool call Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "title": "Research and Baseline Reproduction",
  "strategic_intent": "Investigate the codebase, explore files under /task, reproduce the baseline public backtest, and understand the model architecture and negative sampling.",
  "summary": "Starting research phase. We will inspect /task/current_model/train_current_model.py, two_tower_model.py, evaluate_public.py, and related data files. We will also run the baseline reproduction to get the baseline validation score and check runtime."
}

Tool response

Current topic: "Research and Baseline Reproduction"
Topic summary: Starting research phase. We will inspect /task/current_model/train_current_model.py, two_tower_model.py, evaluate_public.py, and related data files. We will also run the baseline reproduction to get the baseline validation score and check runtime.

Strategic Intent: Investigate the codebase, explore files under /task, reproduce the baseline public backtest, and understand the model architecture and negative sampling.
04

list_directory command

+00:06
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
Tool calllist_directoryTool call Error

Tool call · Input

{
  "dir_path": "/task/current_model"
}

Tool response · Tool error

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

List files in /task directory

+00:08
Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Exploring Task Directory

I'm investigating the reach of list_directory, specifically its constraints to /app or /home/agent/.gemini/tmp/app. My current focus is on testing whether run_shell_command can access the /task directory. To do this, I've initiated a ls -la /task command.

Tool callrun_shell_commandList files in /task directory Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "ls -la /task",
  "description": "List files in /task directory"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: total 40
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root 4096 Sep 29 02:01 .
drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4096 Sep 29 02:04 ..
-r--r--r-- 1 root root    0 Sep 29 01:59 .keep
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root 4096 Sep 29 01:59 current_model
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root 4096 Sep 29 02:00 data
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 5774 Sep 29 01:59 evaluate_public.py
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 8265 Sep 29 01:59 ranking_evaluation.py
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 1295 Sep 29 01:59 requirements.txt
Process Group PGID: 1612
</untrusted_context>
06

read_file evaluate_public.py

+00:10
Tool callread_file/task/evaluate_public.py Error

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/task/evaluate_public.py",
  "start_line": 1,
  "end_line": 50
}

Tool response · Tool error

Path not in workspace: Attempted path "/task/evaluate_public.py" resolves outside the allowed workspace directories: /app or the project temp directory: /home/agent/.gemini/tmp/app
07

Inspect contents of /task/current_model and /task/data

+00:19
Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Analyzing Task Data

I'm reviewing the provided task data, specifically the /task directory. It appears I can only access files within the /app or /home/agent/.gemini/tmp/app workspaces. Therefore, I need to copy any necessary files from /task into one of these designated locations to proceed with analysis.

Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect contents of /task/current_model and /task/data Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "ls -la /task/current_model && ls -lh /task/data",
  "description": "Inspect contents of /task/current_model and /task/data"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: total 104
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root  4096 Sep 29 01:59 .
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root  4096 Sep 29 02:01 ..
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 80058 Sep 29 01:59 train_current_model.py
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 15985 Sep 29 01:59 two_tower_model.py
total 340M
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 342K Sep 29 01:59 candidate_catalog.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root  83K Sep 29 01:59 target_users.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 7.4M Sep 29 01:59 test_eligible_candidates.npz
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 1.1M Sep 29 02:00 test_preference_state.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 838K Sep 29 01:59 train_dislikes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 5.2M Sep 29 01:59 train_likes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 305M Sep 29 01:59 train_listens.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 153K Sep 29 01:59 train_undislikes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 1.8M Sep 29 01:59 train_unlikes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root  36K Sep 29 01:59 val_dislikes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 292K Sep 29 01:59 val_likes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 9.5M Sep 29 01:59 val_listens.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 7.7K Sep 29 01:59 val_undislikes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root  71K Sep 29 01:59 val_unlikes.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 7.3M Sep 29 01:59 validation_eligible_candidates.npz
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 1.1M Sep 29 02:00 validation_preference_state.parquet
Process Group PGID: 1615
</untrusted_context>
08

Copy current_model files to /app/solution/

+00:39
Recorded reasoning summary 24 words

Examining Scripts

I am currently reviewing the contents of evaluate_public.py and ranking_evaluation.py. My next step involves copying train_current_model.py and two_tower_model.py from /task/current_model/ to /app/solution/.

Model text

I will copy the production model source files from /task/current_model/ into /app/solution/ so that we can inspect, edit, and run them within the workspace.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCopy current_model files to /app/solution/ Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Copy current_model files to /app/solution/",
  "command": "cp /task/current_model/* /app/solution/"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: (empty)
Process Group PGID: 1619
</untrusted_context>
09

Check evaluate_public.py contents

+00:42
Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck evaluate_public.py contents Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check evaluate_public.py contents",
  "command": "head -n 50 /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
Process Group PGID: 1622
</untrusted_context>
10

Check CPU count, available RAM, and Python version

+00:44
Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck CPU count, available RAM, and Python version Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check CPU count, available RAM, and Python version",
  "command": "nproc && free -h && python3 --version"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: 8
/usr/bin/bash: line 4: free: command not found
Exit Code: 127
Process Group PGID: 1625
</untrusted_context>
11

Check total memory and python version

+00:51
Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck total memory and python version Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check total memory and python version",
  "command": "cat /proc/meminfo | grep MemTotal && python3 --version"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: MemTotal:       15988968 kB
Python 3.12.13
Process Group PGID: 1629
</untrusted_context>
12

Count lines in model files

+00:54
Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Running Baseline Reproduction

I am currently executing the baseline reproduction command as outlined. The system has 8 CPU cores and approximately 16 GB of RAM available for this process. I will report back once this initial step is complete.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCount lines in model files Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Count lines in model files",
  "command": "wc -l /app/solution/train_current_model.py /app/solution/two_tower_model.py"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: 2164 /app/solution/train_current_model.py
  433 /app/solution/two_tower_model.py
 2597 total
Process Group PGID: 1634
</untrusted_context>
13

read_file two_tower_model.py

+00:56
Tool callread_file/app/solution/two_tower_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 150,
  "start_line": 1,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/two_tower_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1-150 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: 151.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
"""Shared public-data primitives for the Yambda two-tower baseline."""
from __future__ import annotations

import sys
from dataclasses import dataclass
from pathlib import Path
from typing import Iterator

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import pyarrow.parquet as pq
import torch
from torch import nn


DAY = 86_400
TRAIN_END = 24_786_800
VALIDATION_END = 25_393_400
LISTEN_POSITIVE_THRESHOLD = 50
PROFILE_LOOKBACK_DAYS = 120
LIKE_ITEMS = 48
DISLIKE_ITEMS = 24
TOP_N = 100


@dataclass(frozen=True)
class TowerConfig:
    sequence_length: int = 100
    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
    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
    seed: int = 29


@dataclass(frozen=True)
class ListenEvents:
    timestamps: np.ndarray
    items: np.ndarray
    organic: np.ndarray
    completion_pct: np.ndarray


@dataclass(frozen=True)
class ExplicitEvents:
    timestamps: np.ndarray
    items: np.ndarray
    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],
        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
14

read_file two_tower_model.py

+00:57
Tool callread_file/app/solution/two_tower_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "start_line": 151,
  "end_line": 300,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/two_tower_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 151-300 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: 301.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
                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])
                heads[position] = next(streams[position], None)
        yield uid, _combine_listen_chunks(parts)


def load_explicit_events(
    data: Path,
    prefixes: tuple[str, ...],
    item_index: pd.Index,
) -> dict[int, ExplicitEvents]:
    """Load public explicit actions as chronological state changes."""
    specifications = (
        ("likes", 0, 1, 0),
        ("unlikes", 0, 0, 1),
        ("dislikes", 1, 1, 0),
        ("undislikes", 1, 0, 1),
    )
    parts: list[pd.DataFrame] = []
    for family, channel, active, tie_priority in specifications:
        for prefix in prefixes:
            frame = pd.read_parquet(
                data / f"{prefix}_{family}.parquet",
                columns=["uid", "timestamp", "item_id", "is_organic"],
            )
            mapped = item_index.get_indexer(
                frame.item_id.to_numpy(dtype=np.int64, copy=False)
            )
            keep = mapped >= 0
            if not np.any(keep):
                continue
            retained = frame.loc[keep, ["uid", "timestamp", "is_organic"]].copy()
            retained["item"] = mapped[keep].astype(np.int32, copy=False)
            retained["channel"] = np.int8(channel)
            retained["active"] = np.int8(active)
            retained["tie_priority"] = np.int8(tie_priority)
            retained["organic_like"] = np.int8(
                family == "likes"
            ) * retained.is_organic.astype(np.int8)
            parts.append(retained.drop(columns="is_organic"))
    if not parts:
        return {}
    events = pd.concat(parts, ignore_index=True)
    events = events.sort_values(
        ["uid", "timestamp", "tie_priority"], kind="mergesort"
    ).reset_index(drop=True)
    result: dict[int, ExplicitEvents] = {}
    for uid, rows in events.groupby("uid", sort=False):
        result[int(uid)] = ExplicitEvents(
            timestamps=rows.timestamp.to_numpy(dtype=np.int64, copy=True),
            items=rows.item.to_numpy(dtype=np.int32, copy=True),
            channel=rows.channel.to_numpy(dtype=np.int8, copy=True),
            active=rows.active.to_numpy(dtype=np.int8, copy=True),
            organic_like=rows.organic_like.to_numpy(dtype=np.int8, copy=True),
        )
    log(f"loaded explicit events: rows={len(events):,} users={len(result):,}")
    return result


def empty_explicit_events() -> ExplicitEvents:
    return ExplicitEvents(
        timestamps=np.empty(0, dtype=np.int64),
        items=np.empty(0, dtype=np.int32),
        channel=np.empty(0, dtype=np.int8),
        active=np.empty(0, dtype=np.int8),
        organic_like=np.empty(0, dtype=np.int8),
    )


def pack_active_items(
    active: dict[int, int], width: int, padding_item: int
) -> np.ndarray:
    packed = np.full(width, padding_item, dtype=np.uint16)
    if not active:
        return packed
    ordered = sorted(active.items(), key=lambda pair: (-pair[1], pair[0]))[:width]
    packed[: len(ordered)] = np.fromiter(
        (item for item, _ in ordered), dtype=np.uint16, count=len(ordered)
    )
    return packed


def load_inference_state(
    path: Path,
    item_index: pd.Index,
    uids: np.ndarray,
    n_items: int,
) -> tuple[np.ndarray, np.ndarray, np.ndarray, np.ndarray]:
    """Pack the task-provided active explicit state."""
    state = pd.read_parquet(path, columns=["uid", "item_id", "state"])
    mapped = item_index.get_indexer(state.item_id.to_numpy(dtype=np.int64))
    keep = mapped >= 0
    state = state.loc[keep, ["uid", "state"]].copy()
    state["item"] = mapped[keep].astype(np.int32, copy=False)
    user_rows = pd.Index(uids)
    liked = np.full((len(uids), LIKE_ITEMS), n_items, dtype=np.uint16)
    disliked = np.full((len(uids), DISLIKE_ITEMS), n_items, dtype=np.uint16)
    like_counts = np.zeros(len(uids), dtype=np.int32)
    dislike_counts = np.zeros(len(uids), dtype=np.int32)
    for value, width, destination, counts in (
        ("liked", LIKE_ITEMS, liked, like_counts),
        ("disliked", DISLIKE_ITEMS, disliked, dislike_counts),
    ):
        selected = state[state.state == value]
        for uid, rows in selected.groupby("uid", sort=False):
            row = int(user_rows.get_indexer([int(uid)])[0])
            if row < 0:
                continue
            items = np.sort(rows.item.unique())
            counts[row] = len(items)
            retained = items[:width]
            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,
15

read_file two_tower_model.py

+00:59
Tool callread_file/app/solution/two_tower_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "start_line": 301,
  "end_line": 434,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/two_tower_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 301-434 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: 435.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
            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
16

grep_search command

+01:01
Tool callgrep_searchTool call Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "dir_path": "/app/solution",
  "pattern": "^(def |class )"
}

Tool response

Found 58 matches for pattern "^(def |class )" in path "/app/solution":
---
File: train_current_model.py
L41: class Config:
L76: class CandidateSet:
L99: class SequenceData:
L127: class TargetPartition:
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
L27: class TowerConfig:
L49: class ListenEvents:
L57: class ExplicitEvents:
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(
L284: class SequentialTwoTower(nn.Module):
L346: def invalid_negative_mask(
L363: def draw_filtered_mixed_negatives(
---
17

Run baseline model training on validation stage

+01:05
Recorded reasoning summary 32 words

Exploring Model Training Logic

I'm currently examining the functions within train_current_model.py, specifically focusing on build_item_correction, build_known_positive_filter, invalid_full_history_negatives, draw_full_history_filtered_negatives, and draw_training_negatives. My aim is to understand their roles in the model's training pipeline.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Testing Baseline Execution

I'm initiating a run of the baseline model to confirm its operational integrity, benchmark its execution duration, and establish a baseline NDCG@10 score. This initial test will inform subsequent investigations into negative sampling strategies.

Tool callrun_shell_commandRun baseline model training on validation stage Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Run baseline model training on validation stage",
  "command": "python3 /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=9.9s
prepared users=3,000 tokens=6,486,146 states=109,471 elapsed=15.1s
prepared users=4,000 tokens=8,793,043 states=148,210 elapsed=20.5s
prepared users=5,000 tokens=10,992,205 states=182,596 elapsed=25.3s
prepared users=6,000 tokens=13,061,727 states=217,148 elapsed=30.1s
prepared users=7,000 tokens=15,334,418 states=256,914 elapsed=35.6s
prepared users=8,000 tokens=17,462,672 states=296,703 elapsed=41.0s
prepared users=9,000 tokens=19,568,405 states=331,551 elapsed=45.7s
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=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=210.3 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/production_validation.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 359.426,
  "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": 0.5398380485827885,
      "positive_logit": 0.7427799622103317,
      "negative_logit": -0.622224706198751,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.754773301847281,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 632551.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 210.331716518,
      "validation_loss": 0.4966362168774782,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 78769.25,
      "validation_seconds": 15.366156885999999
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.603016972541809,
    "query_norm_std": 0.7697498202323914,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.7570279836654663,
    "item_norm_std": 0.8279486298561096
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
Process Group PGID: 1639
</untrusted_context>
18

Evaluate baseline validation ranking

+07:29
Tool callrun_shell_commandEvaluate baseline validation ranking Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Evaluate baseline validation ranking",
  "command": "python3 /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/production_validation.parquet"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: {
  "model": "/app/solution/production_validation.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.02128,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 1671
</untrusted_context>
19

read_file train_current_model.py

+07:38
Recorded reasoning summary 47 words

Analyzing Performance Data

My current focus is on understanding the initial performance benchmark. I've noted the baseline quality score and the number of users evaluated. My next step is to integrate the time budget constraints into my planning to ensure efficient validation and a proper final refit.

Recorded reasoning summary 51 words

Investigating Current Score

I'm prioritizing understanding why the current score is 0.02128 by re-reading the problem description carefully. My immediate goal is to determine if a baseline test submission can be generated to ensure a valid submission is always on hand. I will also investigate the duration of the test stage.

Recorded reasoning summary 47 words

Refining Negative Sampling

I'm now digging into how negative examples are selected and utilized within the existing training objective. My aim is to pinpoint limitations in the current sampling strategy and enhance it while remaining within the CPU budget. I'll validate any changes using the public backtest.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "start_line": 530,
  "end_line": 600,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 530-600 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: 601.

--- 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)
20

read_file train_current_model.py

+07:42
Recorded reasoning summary 32 words

Analyzing Code Block

I'm currently examining line 590, specifically the build_known_positive_filter function. I'm focused on its role in packing a user's complete public-training positive-item set and how it utilizes prepared and training_counts.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "end_line": 750,
  "start_line": 601
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 601-750 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: 751.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
        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",
    )
    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(
21

read_file train_current_model.py

+07:48
Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Analyzing Code Snippets

I'm currently scrutinizing lines 587-596. My focus is on understanding the build_known_positive_filter function and its role in packing each user's public-training positive-item set. This involves a close examination of the prepared sequence data and training_counts array.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "start_line": 820,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "end_line": 950
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 820-950 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: 951.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    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)

    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):,}"
22

read_file train_current_model.py

+07:49
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 1150,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 951
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 951-1150 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: 1151.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    )
    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]
23

read_file train_current_model.py

+07:53
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 1151,
  "end_line": 1350
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1151-1350 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: 1351.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
        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()


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),
24

read_file train_current_model.py

+07:55
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 80,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 40
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 40-80 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: 81.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
@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
25

read_file train_current_model.py

+07:57
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 2050,
  "start_line": 1920,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1920-2050 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) ---


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")
    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)
26

read_file train_current_model.py

+07:59
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 2165,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 2051
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 2051-2165 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) ---
    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())
27

read_file train_current_model.py

+08:01
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

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

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,
28

read_file train_current_model.py

+08:05
Recorded reasoning summary 60 words

Optimizing Data Preparation

I've observed that the data preparation step, specifically prepare_data, is consuming around 45 seconds during the validation phase. My current thinking is to leverage a --prepared-cache to store this prepared data, thereby significantly reducing subsequent run times. I'm also considering the implications of this caching for the submission stage where both training and validation data are combined.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 470,
  "start_line": 340,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 340-470 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: 471.

--- 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,
    )
    log(
        f"prepared stage={stage} sequence_users={len(prepared.user_ids):,} "
        f"tokens={len(prepared.sequence_items):,} "
        f"next_item_targets={prepared.target_count:,} "
        f"states={len(prepared.liked_states):,}"
    )
    return prepared, eligibility

29

Generate validation sequence data cache

+08:07
Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Preparing Data Efficiently

I'm focusing on optimizing data preparation by leveraging a deterministic cache. This should significantly speed up validation experiments by avoiding repeated parsing of parquet files, allowing for near-instantaneous loading from the cache.

Tool callrun_shell_commandGenerate validation sequence data cache Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --prepare-only",
  "description": "Generate validation sequence data cache"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: usage: train_current_model.py [-h] [--stage {validation,submission}] --output
                              OUTPUT --public-dir PUBLIC_DIR
                              [--prepared-cache PREPARED_CACHE]
                              [--device {cpu,mps}] [--threads THREADS]
                              [--bptt-steps BPTT_STEPS]
                              [--user-batch-size USER_BATCH_SIZE]
                              [--epochs EPOCHS]
                              [--learning-rate LEARNING_RATE]
                              [--loss-microbatch-size LOSS_MICROBATCH_SIZE]
                              [--negative-filter-scope {full-training-history,last-100}]
                              [--target-weighting {discovery-graded,organic-strong,uniform}]
                              [--ordinary-target-weight ORDINARY_TARGET_WEIGHT]
                              [--organic-strong-target-weight ORGANIC_STRONG_TARGET_WEIGHT]
                              [--organic-like-target-weight ORGANIC_LIKE_TARGET_WEIGHT]
                              [--discovery-horizon-days DISCOVERY_HORIZON_DAYS]
                              [--validation-fraction VALIDATION_FRACTION]
                              [--max-train-targets-per-user MAX_TRAIN_TARGETS_PER_USER]
                              [--max-validation-targets-per-user MAX_VALIDATION_TARGETS_PER_USER]
                              [--early-stopping-patience EARLY_STOPPING_PATIENCE]
                              [--early-stopping-min-delta EARLY_STOPPING_MIN_DELTA]
                              [--checkpoint-dir CHECKPOINT_DIR]
                              [--resume-checkpoint RESUME_CHECKPOINT]
                              [--seed SEED]
                              [--ranking-batch-size RANKING_BATCH_SIZE]
                              [--prepare-only]
train_current_model.py: error: the following arguments are required: --output
Exit Code: 2
Process Group PGID: 1691
</untrusted_context>
30

Build validation cache

+08:13
Tool callrun_shell_commandBuild validation cache Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 /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",
  "description": "Build validation cache"
}

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=9.9s
prepared users=3,000 tokens=6,486,146 states=109,471 elapsed=15.1s
prepared users=4,000 tokens=8,793,043 states=148,210 elapsed=20.5s
prepared users=5,000 tokens=10,992,205 states=182,596 elapsed=25.4s
prepared users=6,000 tokens=13,061,727 states=217,148 elapsed=30.2s
prepared users=7,000 tokens=15,334,418 states=256,914 elapsed=35.7s
prepared users=8,000 tokens=17,462,672 states=296,703 elapsed=41.0s
prepared users=9,000 tokens=19,568,405 states=331,551 elapsed=45.7s
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": 50.886,
  "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: 1702
</untrusted_context>
31

update_topic command

+09:12
Recorded reasoning summary 45 words

Investigating Optimization Strategy

My focus has shifted to optimizing our approach. With efficient data loading now secured via the validation cache, I'm eager to delve into the intricacies of negative sampling and the loss function. This next phase is critical for refining our strategic intent.

Tool callupdate_topicTool call Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "strategic_intent": "Analyze the negative sampling strategy, loss function, and objective alignment to diagnose the retrieval quality bottleneck.",
  "summary": "We verified the baseline score (NDCG@10 = 0.02128) and created a prepared sequence cache for fast iteration. Now we will analyze the current training objective, negative sampling strategy, and evaluation metric alignment.",
  "title": "Diagnosing Negative Sampling and Training Objective"
}

Tool response

Current topic: "Diagnosing Negative Sampling and Training Objective"
Topic summary: We verified the baseline score (NDCG@10 = 0.02128) and created a prepared sequence cache for fast iteration. Now we will analyze the current training objective, negative sampling strategy, and evaluation metric alignment.

Strategic Intent: Analyze the negative sampling strategy, loss function, and objective alignment to diagnose the retrieval quality bottleneck.
32

Inspect ranking_evaluation.py

+09:20
Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Investigating Sampling Strategies

My focus is now on dissecting how this mature baseline trainer, with its inherent internal validation, selects and utilizes negative examples. I aim to pinpoint any limitations within its current negative-sampling methodology to improve its effectiveness.

Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect ranking_evaluation.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "head -n 80 /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))
Process Group PGID: 1726
</untrusted_context>
33

Inspect evaluate_public.py scoring details

+09:22
Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect evaluate_public.py scoring details Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Inspect evaluate_public.py scoring details",
  "command": "tail -n 80 /task/evaluate_public.py"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: ][["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: 1729
</untrusted_context>
34

read_file train_current_model.py

+09:25
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "end_line": 1920,
  "start_line": 1780
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1780-1920 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: 1921.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---

@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")
35

read_file train_current_model.py

+09:51
Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Calculating Scores

I've been focusing on the inference step, specifically how scores are computed. The process involves a matrix multiplication of queries and items, followed by masking out ineligible items with negative infinity. Finally, I extract the top-k indices from the resulting scores.

Recorded reasoning summary 77 words

Verifying Score Calculations

I've confirmed that raw dot products are indeed utilized for score calculations, aligning with both training and inference processes. My next step involves a deep dive into the training objective, negative sampling, loss function, and the intricacies of false-negative filtering.

Analyzing Loss Function

I am currently scrutinizing the corrected_negative_loss function. My focus is on understanding how it handles both uniform and in-batch negatives, particularly how the correction tensor is applied to adjust the logits.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Investigating Loss Formulation

I'm re-examining the Binary Cross-Entropy loss formulation. It appears the implementation uses softplus for both positive and negative terms, and I'm digging into how it handles multiple negative samples, particularly with the corrected_negative_loss function.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Revising Loss Calculation

I've discovered an averaging issue within the negative loss calculation. It appears the mean is being taken over negative samples rather than a sum, significantly impacting gradient ratios. This deviates from standard BCE and prompts further investigation into optimal loss functions for retrieval.

Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Questioning Loss Choice

I'm questioning whether Binary Cross-Entropy is indeed the standard for modern two-tower retrieval models, considering alternatives like InfoNCE. I need to re-evaluate the prompt's constraints on the training objective to confirm flexibility.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Exploring Negative Sampling

I am now focusing on the core of the problem: the training objective and its negative sampling strategy. My goal is to identify limitations within the current approach and devise improvements that fit within the CPU budget. I'll be validating these changes against the public backtest.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Investigating Negative Selection

I'm now scrutinizing how negative examples are selected, specifically within draw_full_history_filtered_neg. My aim is to pinpoint any limitations in the current strategy and explore improvements that respect the CPU budget, keeping the upcoming public backtest validation in mind.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Refining Negative Sampling

I'm now examining the specific implementations of negative sampling, focusing on draw_full_history_filtered_negatives. My goal is to analyze its current strategies and identify potential optimizations that align with CPU constraints for the upcoming backtest validation.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Revising Negative Sampling

I'm now re-examining the negative sampling logic. I noticed an issue where unique_targets are filtered incorrectly. My focus is on ensuring all target IDs are properly accounted for and that the negative sampling strategy aligns with the overall objective.

Recorded reasoning summary 31 words

Revising Filter Logic

I'm now revisiting the build_known_positive_filter function to fully grasp its positive item filtering mechanism. My goal is to ensure its accuracy and completeness for subsequent negative sampling considerations.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Revising Target Partitioning

I'm delving into the chronological_target_partition function. I've noted comments suggesting the absence of a chronological BCE suffix, which contradicts my understanding of the partitioning logic. I need to reconcile these observations and understand the implications for training data.

Recorded reasoning summary 33 words

Clarifying Chronological Partitioning

I'm analyzing the chronological_target_partition function, specifically the interaction between totals, validation, and training counts. I'm also looking into build_dense_block to understand how these counts translate to actual positions and target_positions.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Clarifying Filtering Logic

I'm re-examining the build_known_positive_filter function. It appears to be filtering based on offset and counts, potentially including older, discarded sequence items rather than the actual positive targets from the current training window. This needs immediate correction to ensure accurate training data.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Correcting Filtering Logic

I've identified a critical flaw in build_known_positive_filter. The current logic incorrectly assumes the training sequence spans 0 to target_count + 1, neglecting the actual sequence length. This is misinterpreting positive items, and I need to align it with the true user history range.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 240,
  "end_line": 320
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 240-320 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: 321.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
        (completion_sum - before_completion)
        / np.maximum(counts, 1)
        / 100.0
    ).astype(np.float16)
    return result


def build_sequence_parts(
    listens: base.ListenEvents,
    explicit: base.ExplicitEvents,
    n_items: int,
    liked_states: list[np.ndarray],
    disliked_states: list[np.ndarray],
    state_counts: list[tuple[int, int]],
) -> tuple[np.ndarray, np.ndarray, np.ndarray, np.ndarray, np.ndarray] | None:
    qualifying = listens.completion_pct >= base.LISTEN_POSITIVE_THRESHOLD
    timestamps = listens.timestamps[qualifying].astype(np.int64, copy=False)
    items = listens.items[qualifying].astype(np.uint16, copy=False)
    organic = listens.organic[qualifying].astype(np.float32, copy=False)
    completion = listens.completion_pct[qualifying].astype(np.float32, copy=False)
    if not len(items):
        return None

    event_features = np.zeros((len(items), 3), dtype=np.float16)
    event_features[:, 0] = organic.astype(np.float16)
    event_features[:, 1] = (
        np.minimum(completion, 100.0) / 100.0
    ).astype(np.float16)
    if len(items) > 1:
        gaps = np.maximum(0, timestamps[1:] - timestamps[:-1])
        event_features[1:, 2] = np.exp(
            -gaps.astype(np.float64) / (60.0 * base.DAY)
        ).astype(np.float16)

    activity = causal_activity_features(
        timestamps, items, organic, completion
    )
    states = np.zeros(len(items), dtype=np.uint32)
    active_likes: dict[int, int] = {}
    active_dislikes: dict[int, int] = {}
    explicit_position = 0
    current_state = 0
    for row, timestamp in enumerate(timestamps):
        changed = False
        while (
            explicit_position < len(explicit.timestamps)
            and int(explicit.timestamps[explicit_position]) < int(timestamp)
        ):
            item = int(explicit.items[explicit_position])
            event_timestamp = int(explicit.timestamps[explicit_position])
            destination = (
                active_likes
                if int(explicit.channel[explicit_position]) == 0
                else active_dislikes
            )
            if int(explicit.active[explicit_position]) == 1:
                destination[item] = event_timestamp
            else:
                destination.pop(item, None)
            explicit_position += 1
            changed = True
        if changed:
            current_state = append_state_snapshot(
                active_likes,
                active_dislikes,
                n_items,
                liked_states,
                disliked_states,
                state_counts,
            )
        states[row] = np.uint32(current_state)
    return timestamps, items.copy(), event_features, activity, states


def final_user_features(
    timestamps: np.ndarray,
    items: np.ndarray,
    event_features: np.ndarray,
    history_end: int,
    like_count: int,
    dislike_count: int,
36

grep_search command

+10:03
Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Refining Sequence Generation

I'm focusing on refining the sequence generation logic within build_sequence_parts. Specifically, I'm ensuring that the qualifying boolean mask correctly isolates all positive listens, identified by completion_pct meeting or exceeding base.LISTEN_POSITIVE_THRESHOLD. This filtered subset of listens will form the basis of our user sequences.

Recorded reasoning summary 50 words

Analyzing Partitioning Strategy

I'm currently examining the target_partition function and its impact on data splitting. The logic for calculating validation and training portions, especially with large items lengths and the max_train_targets_per_user constraint, is a key focus. I'm also reviewing how build_dense_block uses these calculated windows and offsets for feature extraction.

Recorded reasoning summary 53 words

Confirming Training Data Boundaries

I've confirmed that the model is trained on the last max_train_targets_per_user targets immediately preceding the validation set. This is achieved by calculating the training data range from offset + window_start + 1 up to offset + window_start + count + 1, where window_start is derived from training_region_ends - training.

Recorded reasoning summary 67 words

Revising Negative Sampling Logic

I'm thoroughly re-examining the negative sampling process, particularly how it interacts with the training and validation boundaries. It appears the current filtering logic for known positives is only considering a very limited initial segment of user history, potentially missing crucial interactions that should be excluded from negative sampling in later parts of the sequence. This needs immediate correction to ensure accurate model training.

Recorded reasoning summary 52 words

Fixing Negative Sampling Flaws

I'm correcting a critical flaw where negative sampling was improperly excluding recently interacted items as potential negatives. This oversight was incorrectly penalizing the model for items the user actually liked. I'm now ensuring that all known positives, both historical and recent, are accurately excluded from negative candidate pools.

Tool callgrep_searchTool call Returned

Tool call · Input

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

Tool response

Found 2 matches for pattern "build_known_positive_filter" in path "/app/solution":
---
File: train_current_model.py
L563-     )
L564-     normalization = float(np.sum(counts * raw) / max(total, 1.0))
L565-     correction = np.clip(
L566-         raw / max(normalization, 1.0e-12),
L567-         config.inbatch_correction_min,
L568-         config.inbatch_correction_max,
L569-     ).astype(np.float32)
L570-     mean_on_targets = float(np.sum(counts * correction) / max(total, 1.0))
L571-     log(
L572-         f"inbatch correction: min={correction.min():.3f} "
L573-         f"mean_on_targets={mean_on_targets:.3f} max={correction.max():.3f}"
L574-     )
L575-     return torch.from_numpy(correction)
L576- 
L577- 
L578: def build_known_positive_filter(
L579-     prepared: SequenceData, training_counts: np.ndarray
L580- ) -> np.ndarray:
L581-     """Pack each user's complete public-training positive-item set."""
L582-     width = (len(prepared.item_ids) + 7) // 8
L583-     packed = np.zeros((len(prepared.user_ids), width), dtype=np.uint8)
L584-     retained = 0
L585-     for user_row, target_count in enumerate(training_counts):
L586-         if not target_count:
L587-             continue
L588-         offset = int(prepared.offsets[user_row])
L589-         # T adjacent targets consume sequence positions 0 through T.  The
L590-         # chronological BCE suffix starts at T + 1 and is intentionally absent.
L591-         items = np.unique(
L592-             prepared.sequence_items[
L593-                 offset : offset + int(target_count) + 1
L1551-     generator = torch.Generator(device="cpu").manual_seed(config.seed + 10_000)
L1552-     item_correction = build_item_correction(
L1553-         prepared,
L1554-         config,
L1555-         partition.window_starts,
L1556-         training_counts,
L1557-     )
L1558-     target_weights = build_target_weights(
L1559-         public,
L1560-         stage,
L1561-         prepared,
L1562-         partition.history_training_counts,
L1563-         config,
L1564-     )
L1565-     known_positive_packed = (
L1566:         build_known_positive_filter(prepared, partition.history_training_counts)
L1567-         if config.negative_filter_scope == "full-training-history"
L1568-         else None
L1569-     )
L1570-     history: list[dict[str, float]] = []
L1571-     best_loss = float("inf")
L1572-     best_epoch = 0
L1573-     best_state: dict[str, torch.Tensor] | None = None
L1574-     epochs_without_improvement = 0
L1575-     start_epoch = 0
L1576- 
L1577-     if resume_checkpoint is not None:
L1578-         payload = torch.load(
L1579-             resume_checkpoint, map_location=device, weights_only=False
L1580-         )
L1581-         stored_config = payload.get("config", {})
---
37

read_file train_current_model.py

+10:17
Recorded reasoning summary 33 words

Processing Partition Data

I've confirmed that partition.history_training_counts, derived from totals - validation, was successfully passed into the build_known_positive_filter function. This indicates progress in how we're handling the historical training counts for partition analysis.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "start_line": 1364,
  "end_line": 1480,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1364-1480 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: 1481.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
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 {
38

read_file train_current_model.py

+10:21
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "end_line": 1700,
  "start_line": 1520
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1520-1700 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: 1701.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---

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
    )
    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,
39

read_file train_current_model.py

+10:22
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "start_line": 1700,
  "end_line": 1780,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1700-1780 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: 1781.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
            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

40

Check candidate counts

+10:38
Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Exploring Epoch Defaults

I'm investigating the default setting of config.epochs to 1. My initial hypothesis is that this is a performance optimization, as a single epoch currently consumes approximately 210 seconds, and with early stopping set at a patience of 1, the process would terminate after this initial evaluation.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Analyzing Negative Sampling

I'm now delving into the specifics of how negative examples are selected within train_current_model.py. My current focus is on dissecting the draw_full_history_filtered_negatives function to understand the exact mechanisms for both uniform and in-batch negative sampling.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Refining Negative Sampling

I'm examining the inbatch_negatives logic. I've identified that targets originates from positive_items, which are derived from the BPTT steps within a user's training block, specifically the positive item IDs. This clarification is crucial for understanding the context of in-batch negative selection.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Clarifying In-Batch Negatives

I've confirmed that targets contains up to 6,400 items per BPTT block. Importantly, the system samples 8 items from unique_targets for in-batch negatives. I'm now investigating how this differs from standard in-batch negative sampling in recommender systems, specifically focusing on the correction mechanism applied by build_item_correction.

Recorded reasoning summary 53 words

Adjusting Loss Calculations

I'm currently investigating the inbatch_correction_power parameter, noting its default value of 0.5. My focus is on how this value, along with the raw and correction tensors derived from item probabilities and counts, impacts the corrected_negative_loss calculation. This appears to be a key area influencing the model's learning from negative samples.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Investigating Loss Weights

I'm now examining how the raw and correction tensors are used in the loss calculation. It appears raw, representing the BCE loss for negative items, is multiplied by correction weights. I'm digging into the origin of these correction weights to understand their impact on the corrected_negative_loss.

Recorded reasoning summary 57 words

Correcting Loss Weighting

I'm realizing my previous assumption about inverse propensity weighting was incomplete. The correction logic seems to be inversely related to item popularity for in-batch negatives. High probability items, sampled more frequently, get smaller weights, and low probability items, sampled less often, receive larger weights. This aligns more with bias correction than simple inverse propensity.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck candidate counts Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check candidate counts",
  "command": "python3 -c \"\nimport numpy as np\nwith np.load('/task/data/validation_eligible_candidates.npz') as f:\n    uids = f['uids']\n    item_ids = f['item_ids']\n    packed = f['packed_eligible']\n    print(f'users: {len(uids)}, items: {len(item_ids)}')\n    # count eligible per user\n    sample_mask = np.unpackbits(packed[0], count=len(item_ids), bitorder='little')\n    print('User 0 eligible items:', sample_mask.sum())\n\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: users: 8456, items: 30000
User 0 eligible items: 29318
Process Group PGID: 1734
</untrusted_context>
41

Inspect validation positive distribution

+10:41
Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Reviewing Catalog Data

I'm analyzing the vast catalog size, noting approximately 30,000 items. My focus is on determining eligible items per user, which appears to be around 29,318, excluding those already interacted with. Next, I need to pinpoint the true positive items within the validation window for each user.

Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect validation positive distribution Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Inspect validation positive distribution",
  "command": "python3 -c \"\nimport pandas as pd, numpy as np\nfrom pathlib import Path\nfrom ranking_evaluation import CandidateSet\nimport evaluate_public\n\neligibility = CandidateSet(Path('/task/data/validation_eligible_candidates.npz'))\ntargets = set(pd.read_parquet('/task/data/target_users.parquet').uid.astype(int))\ngraded = evaluate_public.validation_truth(eligibility, targets)\nprint('Number of users with at least 1 positive:', len(graded))\npos_counts = [len(v) for v in graded.values()]\nprint('Average positives per positive user:', np.mean(pos_counts), 'median:', np.median(pos_counts), 'max:', np.max(pos_counts))\ngrade3_counts = [sum(1 for g in v.values() if g == 3) for v in graded.values()]\nprint('Average grade 3 per user:', np.mean(grade3_counts))\n\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<string>", line 4, in <module>
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'ranking_evaluation'
Exit Code: 1
Process Group PGID: 1744
</untrusted_context>
42

Inspect validation positive distribution

+10:56
Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect validation positive distribution Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "PYTHONPATH=/task python3 -c \"\nimport pandas as pd, numpy as np\nfrom pathlib import Path\nfrom ranking_evaluation import CandidateSet\nimport evaluate_public\n\neligibility = CandidateSet(Path('/task/data/validation_eligible_candidates.npz'))\ntargets = set(pd.read_parquet('/task/data/target_users.parquet').uid.astype(int))\ngraded = evaluate_public.validation_truth(eligibility, targets)\nprint('Number of users with at least 1 positive:', len(graded))\npos_counts = [len(v) for v in graded.values()]\nprint('Average positives per positive user:', np.mean(pos_counts), 'median:', np.median(pos_counts), 'max:', np.max(pos_counts))\ngrade3_counts = [sum(1 for g in v.values() if g == 3) for v in graded.values()]\nprint('Average grade 3 per user:', np.mean(grade3_counts))\n\"",
  "description": "Inspect validation positive distribution"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Number of users with at least 1 positive: 4263
Average positives per positive user: 8.859723199624677 median: 4.0 max: 442
Average grade 3 per user: 1.0361247947454844
Process Group PGID: 1755
</untrusted_context>
43

Check item distribution in baseline predictions

+11:01
Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Analyzing Baseline Predictions

I'm currently examining the baseline model's top 10 predictions from /app/solution/production_validation.parquet. My focus is on understanding the characteristics of these predicted items – their popularity, any repetition, and how they align with the 4263 users who have at least one positive.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck item distribution in baseline predictions Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check item distribution in baseline predictions",
  "command": "python3 -c \"\nimport pandas as pd\ndf = pd.read_parquet('/app/solution/production_validation.parquet')\nprint('Total rows:', len(df))\nprint('Unique items recommended:', df.item_id.nunique())\ntop_recs = df[df['rank'] <= 10].item_id.value_counts()\nprint('Top 10 recommended items (frequency across users in top 10):')\nprint(top_recs.head(15))\nprint('Number of unique items in top 10:', df[df['rank'] <= 10].item_id.nunique())\n\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Total rows: 845600
Unique items recommended: 2575
Top 10 recommended items (frequency across users in top 10):
item_id
6006390    2917
8213481    2800
6896222    2712
8743390    2653
5436843    2587
2651314    2580
8722394    2542
3542184    2427
5862961    2292
906358     2066
5927996    1872
9378983    1537
2185191    1522
6901374    1463
3033749    1333
Name: count, dtype: int64
Number of unique items in top 10: 592
Process Group PGID: 1775
</untrusted_context>
44

Check popularity of baseline top recommendations

+11:07
Recorded reasoning summary 45 words

Analyzing User Recommendations

I'm focusing on the recommendation performance of specific items. Item 6006390 is standing out significantly, appearing in the top 10 for a substantial portion of users. It's interesting to see how few unique items actually make it into these top recommendations overall.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck popularity of baseline top recommendations Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 -c \"\nimport pandas as pd\ncat = pd.read_parquet('/task/data/candidate_catalog.parquet')\ntop_items = [6006390, 8213481, 6896222, 8743390, 5436843, 2651314, 8722394, 3542184]\nprint(cat[cat.item_id.isin(top_items)][['item_id', 'popularity_rank', 'positive_listens', 'organic_positive_listens']])\n\"",
  "description": "Check popularity of baseline top recommendations"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: item_id  popularity_rank  positive_listens  organic_positive_listens
3    3542184                4             24075                     17699
6    8213481                7             22505                     17071
10   2651314               11             16286                     11801
13   5436843               14             14897                     12127
21   8743390               22             13518                      8480
74   6006390               75              8970                      6813
633  8722394              634              3464                      1695
817  6896222              818              3020                      2017
Process Group PGID: 1793
</untrusted_context>
45

Check popularity of true validation positive items

+11:11
Recorded reasoning summary 55 words

Analyzing Popularity Dynamics

I'm currently investigating the popularity of top recommended items, comparing them against items explicitly identified as true positives within the graded set. My focus is on discerning whether these true positives lean towards general popularity or represent more personalized, niche preferences, and crucially, whether this popularity bias is negatively impacting NDCG@10 scores.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck popularity of true validation positive items Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "PYTHONPATH=/task python3 -c \"\nimport pandas as pd, numpy as np\nfrom pathlib import Path\nfrom ranking_evaluation import CandidateSet\nimport evaluate_public\n\ncat = pd.read_parquet('/task/data/candidate_catalog.parquet').set_index('item_id')\neligibility = CandidateSet(Path('/task/data/validation_eligible_candidates.npz'))\ntargets = set(pd.read_parquet('/task/data/target_users.parquet').uid.astype(int))\ngraded = evaluate_public.validation_truth(eligibility, targets)\n\nranks = []\nfor uid, items in graded.items():\n    for item in items:\n        if item in cat.index:\n            ranks.append(cat.loc[item, 'popularity_rank'])\n\nprint('True positives popularity rank:')\nprint(pd.Series(ranks).describe(percentiles=[0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9]))\n\"",
  "description": "Check popularity of true validation positive items"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: True positives popularity rank:
count    37769.000000
mean      8463.087744
std       8117.953262
min          1.000000
10%        428.000000
25%       1733.000000
50%       5622.000000
75%      13374.000000
90%      21680.200000
max      30000.000000
dtype: float64
Process Group PGID: 1810
</untrusted_context>
46

grep_search command

+11:55
Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Analyzing Discovery Data

My current focus is on the "Made for You" music discovery surface. I'm observing that true discovery positives have a median popularity rank of 5,622, with the 75th percentile at 13,374. Users are exploring a wide range of tracks here.

Recorded reasoning summary 45 words

Investigating Recommendation Logic

I'm digging into why the current model is universally recommending highly popular tracks despite the observed distribution of user discovery. My next step is to meticulously examine the training objective and negative sampling mechanics to pinpoint the root cause of this behavior.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Refining Loss Function

I'm currently examining the corrected_negative_loss function, specifically how uniform_negatives and inbatch_negatives are weighted and combined. My goal is to understand how this impacts the overall loss calculation and the model's tendency to favor popular tracks.

Recorded reasoning summary 50 words

Re-evaluating Negative Sampling

I'm scrutinizing the corrected_negative_loss implementation, particularly the sampling of uniform_negatives. It appears this method, by drawing from obscure tracks, isn't effectively teaching the model to differentiate relevant from popular items. My next step is to deeply investigate how in-batch negatives are being sampled to understand their contribution.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Adjusting In-Batch Sampling

I've identified a potential issue in how unique_targets are being processed for in-batch negatives. The current method might be inadvertently including some popular items and not effectively distinguishing them from truly relevant ones. I'm investigating the torch.unique and subsequent sampling logic.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Fixing In-Batch Logic

I've discovered the core issue: torch.unique is applied before sampling in-batch negatives, destroying frequency weighting. This means popular items aren't being sampled proportionally, undermining the intended effect. I'm now investigating how to correct this to ensure proper in-batch negative sampling.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Correcting Loss Weighting

I've uncovered a significant issue where the corrected_negative_loss incorrectly downweights popular items sampled as in-batch negatives. This is due to the weights calculation multiplying their loss by 0.25, while rare items get amplified. This, combined with the previous unique_targets flattening, severely distorts the learning signal.

Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Verifying Theory

I'm now cross-referencing my findings with established research, specifically "Sampling-bias-corrected neural modeling for large-scale recommendation." My goal is to ensure my understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of negative sampling and bias correction aligns precisely with the implementation.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Validating Training Objectives

I'm now comparing the theoretical advantages of logit correction, as found in research, against the current implementation's use of Binary Cross-Entropy (BCE) loss. My next step is to determine if the codebase supports alternative objectives like Softmax or InfoNCE, which might better handle popularity bias.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Revising Loss Formulation

I'm now exploring how to revise the loss formulation. My current thinking is to remove the erroneous weight calculation and ensure that positive items are not inadvertently treated as negatives within the in-batch sampling. I'm also considering how to better implement logit correction.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Testing New Recommendations

I'm now validating the corrected loss formulation against the public backtest to ensure it trains and ranks efficiently within the CPU environment while respecting serving and data boundaries. This step is crucial for confirming the practical impact of the changes.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Replacing Invalid Negatives

I'm now actively replacing invalid in-batch negatives. The code iterates, identifies problematic samples, and replaces them with new random draws from the item pool. This process ensures we're always learning from genuinely distinct negative examples, refining the model’s understanding.

Recorded reasoning summary 50 words

Replacing Invalid Negatives

I'm actively replacing invalid in-batch negatives by iterating and drawing new random samples from the item pool. This ensures the model learns from genuinely distinct negative examples. I'm also re-evaluating the number of uniform negatives sampled, as the current count seems excessively high given the catalog size.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Investigating Batch Size

I'm questioning the fixed number of 8 in-batch negatives. Given the potential for 500-1000 unique targets and a much larger overall item pool, this feels overly restrictive and likely insufficient for robust learning. I'm also questioning the fixed 24 uniform negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 50 words

Evaluating Unique Item Encoding

I'm re-examining the candidate_vectors function. I've realized that torch.unique is applied before encoding, meaning I might be encoding the same item multiple times if it appears in both positives and negatives, or across different batch examples. This is inefficient and could lead to inconsistent vector representations.

Recorded reasoning summary 58 words

Implementing In-Batch Negatives

I'm realizing the potential of true in-batch negatives. Instead of fixed uniform or in-batch samples, I can leverage all other items within a microbatch as negatives for a given query. This simplifies computation, reduces the need for explicit sampling, and increases the number of effective negatives per query, leading to a more robust training signal.

Recorded reasoning summary 54 words

Processing User Data

I'm now observing how user data is batched and processed. For each group of 64 users, up to 100 BPTT steps occur, resulting in a large number of positive targets. I'm examining the target_weighting configuration, specifically the default "organic-strong", and its impact on the weights assigned to different types of targets.

Recorded reasoning summary 55 words

Analyzing Target Weights

I'm focusing on how organic listen percentages and likes are weighted within the loss function. My current analysis reveals that organic likes, representing grade 3 relevance, have a significantly higher gain (7x) in the graded NDCG@10 metric compared to 80% organic listens (grade 1). This disparity needs careful consideration in my formulation.

Recorded reasoning summary 51 words

Revising Target Weighting

I'm now examining the impact of different target_weighting configurations on the loss. My analysis suggests that the default "organic-strong" is not optimal for discovery and that moving towards a "discovery-graded" approach is necessary to improve performance. I'm also re-evaluating the weight assigned to organic likes versus organic listens.

Recorded reasoning summary 57 words

Refining Negative Sampling Strategy

I'm now focusing on the _sample_negatives function, specifically how uniform and inbatch negatives are drawn. My initial analysis suggests the current approach to inbatch sampling might not be optimal given the number of unique_targets and the overall n_items. I'm investigating the logic for corrected_count and priorities to ensure we're effectively sampling relevant negatives.

Tool callgrep_searchTool call Returned

Tool call · Input

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

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
---
47

Inspect train_listens stats

+12:02
Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Analyzing Input Features

I'm currently examining how dislikes are handled within the user tower. My current understanding is that they're solely an input feature, never treated as hard negatives. I'm now shifting focus to the listens data to see its role.

Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect train_listens stats Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Inspect train_listens stats",
  "command": "python3 -c \"\nimport pyarrow.parquet as pq\ntable = pq.read_table('/task/data/train_listens.parquet')\nprint('Schema:', table.schema)\nprint('Total rows:', table.num_rows)\n# sample played_ratio_pct\nratios = table['played_ratio_pct'].slice(0, 1000000).to_numpy()\nprint('played_ratio_pct < 20%:', (ratios < 20).mean())\nprint('played_ratio_pct < 50%:', (ratios < 50).mean())\nprint('played_ratio_pct >= 80%:', (ratios >= 80).mean())\n\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Schema: uid: uint32
timestamp: uint32
item_id: uint32
is_organic: uint8
played_ratio_pct: uint16
track_length_seconds: uint32
-- schema metadata --
pandas: '{"index_columns": [], "column_indexes": [], "columns": [{"name":' + 797
Total rows: 43484159
played_ratio_pct < 20%: 0.313242
played_ratio_pct < 50%: 0.375987
played_ratio_pct >= 80%: 0.585347
Process Group PGID: 1832
</untrusted_context>
48

Check lengths vs history_training

+12:44
Recorded reasoning summary 31 words

Analyzing Skip Patterns

I'm diving deeper into the skip data, specifically the 37.6% of listens that are under 50%. I'm re-examining invalid_negative_mask and invalid_full_history_negatives for any insights into these rapid disengagements.

Recorded reasoning summary 51 words

Refining Negative Filtering

I've identified a potential issue with how liked_items is utilized within invalid_full_history_negatives. It seems the current implementation, with LIKE_ITEMS set to 48, might be implicitly considering a broader set of "liked" items than intended, potentially impacting the accuracy of my negative sample filtering, especially for those short listens.

Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Investigating Item Inclusion

I'm realizing liked_states isn't in invalid_negative_mask, which is logical as disliked items are indeed negatives. However, I'm now questioning the role of known_positive_packed within build_known_positive_filter, as its interaction with user and item data requires further scrutiny.

Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Re-evaluating Positive Data

I'm scrutinizing build_known_positive_filter and its inclusion of prepared.sequence_items. This now appears to encompass all positive listens, prompting me to consider how items present in train_likes but absent from listens are being handled.

Recorded reasoning summary 29 words

Examining Candidate Exclusion

I'm realizing that at test and validation time, all "train\_\*" encounters, including listens, likes, and dislikes, are excluded from candidate eligibility. This is a significant constraint.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Analyzing Negative Sampling

I'm finding the current negative sampling strategy flawed. The uniform negatives are too easy, and the in-batch negatives aren't sampled by popularity as I'd assumed, meaning every unique item in the batch has an equal chance of being picked.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Revising Sampling Methods

I'm realizing my current negative sampling strategy is fundamentally flawed. Uniform negatives are too simplistic, and in-batch negatives aren't sampled by popularity as anticipated, leading to a model that fails to suppress popular, irrelevant items.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Adjusting Loss Weighting

I'm recalibrating the in-batch negative sampling. The current approach over-penalizes rare items and under-penalizes popular ones by clipping their correction factors. I'm refining the correction calculation to better reflect item popularity, aiming for a more balanced loss.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Correcting Loss Application

I've discovered a critical flaw in how in-batch negatives are weighted within the loss calculation. Popular items are being excessively down-weighted when they appear as negatives, effectively reducing their penalty and hindering model performance. This needs immediate correction.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Correcting Gradient Impact

I'm realizing that by heavily penalizing popular items less when they act as negatives, the model learns to universally favor popular items due to their near immunity to negative gradients. This is a significant issue for personalized recommendations.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Correcting Popularity Bias

I'm realizing my previous adjustments still allow popular items, even as negatives, to dominate the loss too much. I need to implement true logit correction for sampled softmax to ensure popular and unpopular items are treated fairly, preventing the model from universally favoring popular candidates.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Correcting Logit Scale

I'm revising the logit scaling for in-batch negatives. Instead of simply subtracting the log probability, I'm implementing a correction that subtracts $\log(p_i)$ for both positive and negative items to properly account for popularity bias in the sampled softmax.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Revising Negative Sampling Logic

I'm exploring how negative items are sampled, considering if popularity-based sampling proportional to frequency, like $(\text{frequency}_i)^\alpha$, might improve the model's ability to distinguish specific user preferences from general popularity. I am now inspecting train_current_model.py to understand the intended configuration options for this sampling strategy.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Exploring Sampling Weights

I am now investigating the inbatch_correction_power and inbatch_correction_min/max parameters within TrainConfig, as these seem directly related to how popularity influences negative sampling. I am also looking at ordinary_target_weight, organic_strong_target_weight, and organic_like_target_weight to understand how different types of positive interactions are weighted.

Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Adjusting Sampling Parameters

I am now examining the inbatch_correction_power, inbatch_correction_min, and inbatch_correction_max parameters to fine-tune the influence of item popularity on negative sampling. Additionally, I am assessing ordinary_target_weight, organic_strong_target_weight, and organic_like_target_weight to understand how various positive interactions are weighted.

Recorded reasoning summary 51 words

Investigating Parameter Sources

I'm realizing that several key negative sampling parameters like inbatch_correction_power are hardcoded within the Config class rather than being exposed as CLI arguments. This limits direct control over their tuning during experimentation, prompting a closer look at how they are intended to be configured in the production environment.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Analyzing Selection Strategy

I am now intently focused on how negative examples are selected. My recent investigations into sampling parameters and their hardcoded nature within the Config class have highlighted this as a critical area needing scrutiny.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Refining Selection Strategy

My focus is now on the selection mechanisms within draw_training_negatives. I'm scrutinizing the overwhelming proportion of uniform negatives and how the in-batch sampling is flattened by torch.unique, thus losing the intended popularity weighting critical for effective negative example generation.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Revising Negative Sampling Logic

I'm exploring how negative items are sampled, considering if popularity-based sampling proportional to frequency, like $(\text{frequency}_i)^\alpha$, might improve the model's ability to distinguish specific user preferences from general popularity. I am now inspecting train_current_model.py to understand the intended configuration options for this sampling strategy.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Analyzing Sequence Inclusion

I'm realizing the prepared.sequence_items slice includes target_count + 1 items, not just the targets. This means the filter is built using an extra item that might not be a true positive. I'm going to check target_count's definition.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck lengths vs history_training Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check lengths vs history_training",
  "command": "python3 -c \"\nimport numpy as np\ncache = np.load('/app/solution/validation_cache.npz')\nlengths = cache['lengths']\nprint('lengths min, mean, max:', lengths.min(), lengths.mean(), lengths.max())\ntotals = np.maximum(lengths - 1, 0)\nval_fraction = 0.10\nvalidation = np.floor(totals * val_fraction).astype(np.int64)\nvalidation[(totals >= 2) & (validation == 0)] = 1\nvalidation = np.minimum(validation, 16)\nhistory_training = totals - validation\nprint('history_training min, mean, max:', history_training.min(), history_training.mean(), history_training.max())\nprint('Difference lengths - history_training:', (lengths - history_training).min(), (lengths - history_training).max())\n\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<string>", line 4, in <module>
  File "/opt/task-venv/lib/python3.12/site-packages/numpy/lib/_npyio_impl.py", line 261, in __getitem__
    raise KeyError(f"{key} is not a file in the archive")
KeyError: 'lengths is not a file in the archive'
Exit Code: 1
Process Group PGID: 1853
</untrusted_context>
49

Check keys in validation_cache.npz

+12:50
Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck keys in validation_cache.npz Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check keys in validation_cache.npz",
  "command": "python3 -c \"\nimport numpy as np\ncache = np.load('/app/solution/validation_cache.npz')\nprint(cache.files)\n\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: ['metadata', 'item_ids', 'item_features', 'user_ids', 'offsets', 'sequence_timestamps', 'sequence_items', 'event_features', 'activity_features', 'state_ids', 'liked_states', 'disliked_states', 'state_counts', 'inference_user_rows', 'inference_liked_items', 'inference_disliked_items', 'inference_user_features']
Process Group PGID: 1863
</untrusted_context>
50

Check lengths vs history_training using offsets

+12:54
Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck lengths vs history_training using offsets Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check lengths vs history_training using offsets",
  "command": "python3 -c \"\nimport numpy as np\ncache = np.load('/app/solution/validation_cache.npz')\noffsets = cache['offsets']\nlengths = offsets[1:] - offsets[:-1]\nprint('lengths min, mean, max:', lengths.min(), lengths.mean(), lengths.max())\ntotals = np.maximum(lengths - 1, 0)\nval_fraction = 0.10\nvalidation = np.floor(totals * val_fraction).astype(np.int64)\nvalidation[(totals >= 2) & (validation == 0)] = 1\nvalidation = np.minimum(validation, 16)\nhistory_training = totals - validation\nprint('history_training min, mean, max:', history_training.min(), history_training.mean(), history_training.max())\nprint('Difference lengths - history_training:', (lengths - history_training).min(), (lengths - history_training).max())\n\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: lengths min, mean, max: 1 2195.5477832512315 25779
history_training min, mean, max: 0 2180.3055281882866 25762
Difference lengths - history_training: 1 17
Process Group PGID: 1873
</untrusted_context>
51

Test runtime with cached prepared data

+13:59
Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Refining Sequence Logic

I'm currently focused on the exact indexing for sequence lengths, ensuring they align correctly with validation counts and the chronological BCE suffix. This involves a precise mapping of T adjacent targets to sequence positions.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Revising Validation Logic

I'm re-evaluating how validation data is excluded. It seems my previous indexing might be too broad, potentially filtering out necessary training targets. I'm now scrutinizing the offset and count logic to ensure only truly historical data is disregarded.

Recorded reasoning summary 47 words

Clarifying Negative Sample Logic

I'm analyzing how known and invalid flags interact to define negative samples. Specifically, I'm verifying that items encountered in train_* sequences are correctly excluded as candidates during inference, and how this impacts the training objective by ensuring past positive interactions aren't mistakenly penalized.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Analyzing Loss Function

I'm dissecting the corrected_negative_loss function line by line. My focus is on how logits are transformed by softplus and how uniform_negatives and inbatch_negatives contribute to the final loss calculation, particularly the weighting and averaging mechanisms.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Analyzing Loss Contribution

I'm detailing how uniform and in-batch negatives are aggregated. Specifically, I've noted how the mean for uniform negatives becomes a sum, and the in-batch negatives are a weighted average, both then scaled by their respective configuration weights before final averaging.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Adjusting Loss Gradients

I've identified a critical discrepancy: the gradient for positive logits is 32 times larger than for any individual uniform negative logit. This imbalance likely stems from the division by two before averaging positive and negative losses. I'm considering adjustments to the loss calculation to rectify this.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Correcting Loss Scaling

I'm realizing the negative loss is being averaged over 32 negatives, effectively giving each negative sample only 1/32nd of the weight of a single negative observation. This drastically imbalances gradients, pushing positive embeddings too hard while barely nudging negatives. I'm re-evaluating this scaling.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Investigating Popular Item Bias

I'm hypothesizing that popular items are over-attracting positive embeddings and under-repelling negative ones due to gradient scaling. To test this, I'll analyze dot products of popular items with random queries and examine baseline model outputs for evidence of this drift.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Investigating Popular Item Bias

My analysis confirms a severe bias towards a small set of highly popular items, dominating top-10 slots and pushing truly personalized discoveries down the ranking. This directly undermines NDCG@10 by preventing relevant items from appearing within the scored range.

Recorded reasoning summary 52 words

Addressing Popularity Bias

I'm now analyzing how sampling and loss calculation contribute to popularity bias. My current focus is on the corrected_negative_loss, where popular items are significantly downweighted as negatives, receiving a much smaller penalty. Additionally, uniform negatives are not frequency-aware, and the overall negative loss scaling seems to amplify this issue.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Evaluating Sampling Strategies

I am exploring different negative sampling techniques to mitigate popularity bias. My current focus is on whether to employ popularity-aware sampling, BPR, or a modified BCE loss, and I am verifying if architectural constraints permit these changes.

Recorded reasoning summary 47 words

Refining Sampling Techniques

I am currently evaluating popularity-aware sampling strategies and modified BCE loss functions to counteract the observed popularity bias. My primary concern is ensuring these adjustments are feasible within the existing CPU budget and architectural constraints, while also verifying their efficacy through the public backtest.

Recorded reasoning summary 33 words

Analyzing Training Time

I'm investigating the training epoch's duration, specifically the bottlenecks within run_training_epoch. I've identified the batch processing and the sheer volume of max_train_targets_per_user as significant contributors to the observed 210-second runtime.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Analyzing InfoNCE Gradient

I'm examining the gradients derived from the InfoNCE loss. Specifically, I'm focused on how the probability distribution over positive and negative items, influenced by temperature scaling, dictates the magnitude and direction of gradient updates for item logits.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Testing Logit Correction

I'm exploring the application of logit correction to InfoNCE, inspired by Google's Sampling-Bias-Corrected Two-Tower model. This involves adjusting negative logits based on their sampling distribution, aiming to refine gradient updates and potentially optimize NDCG@10. I'm reviewing the baseline's approach to in-batch negative correction for comparison.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Fixing Correction Logic

I've identified a critical conceptual error in the implementation of propensity correction. It appears the correction was inverted, leading to rare items being overly penalized and popular items being immune to negative feedback. I'm now focused on rectifying this and exploring InfoNCE as an alternative.

Recorded reasoning summary 34 words

Revising Correction Logic

I've discovered my propensity correction was inverted, penalizing rare items too much and making popular items immune to negative feedback. I'm fixing this and now considering InfoNCE as a superior alternative.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Analyzing Loss Aggregation

I'm reviewing how losses are aggregated and weighted. It appears positive and negative losses are averaged, then scaled by weights. I'm also examining how statistics like pair_correct are calculated and how target_weighting options might influence overall outcomes.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Analyzing Sequence Data

I'm examining how sequence data is processed, specifically focusing on the discovery_horizon_days and base.DAY multiplication. I'm also scrutinizing how repeated items within a sequence are handled and weighted, ensuring they don't receive undue influence as novel discoveries.

Recorded reasoning summary 54 words

Adjusting Target Weights

I'm re-examining the target weighting system, noticing that "grade-3" novel organic likes within 7 days are assigned a weight of 3.0, while ordinary targets get 0.25. This strong weighting reflects the discovery objective, but I'm questioning why "organic-strong" was the default. I am now scrutinizing the negative sampling strategy as described.

Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Refining Sampling Logic

I'm now scrutinizing the exact logic for drawing negatives, particularly draw_full_history_filtered_negatives. My focus is on how in-batch negatives are selected from unique targets, ensuring the count is correctly bounded and sampled efficiently.

Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Fixing In-Batch Negatives

I've discovered that my implementation of in-batch negative sampling was fundamentally flawed. By taking unique targets and sampling uniformly from them, I wasn't actually performing in-batch negative sampling as intended. I am now correcting this logic.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Correcting In-Batch Sampling

I've uncovered that my previous in-batch negative sampling logic was flawed. Sampling uniformly from unique targets meant popular items weren't favored, unlike the true popularity distribution. I am now correcting this to accurately reflect item frequencies within the batch.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Investigating Correction Inversion

I'm questioning whether my prior implementation of inverse propensity weighting for in-batch negatives was inverted. It seems popular items are receiving significantly reduced negative loss, while rare items are penalized disproportionately, suggesting a potential inversion in my correction logic.

Recorded reasoning summary 55 words

Understanding Correction Rationale

I'm realizing that inverse propensity weighting for in-batch negatives is crucial to avoid learning lift instead of true probability. My prior correction logic was inverted, making popular items immune to negative penalties and penalizing rare items excessively. The goal is to learn $P(\text{user likes item } i)$, not its lift over popularity.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Adjusting Popularity Correction

I'm realizing my previous inverse propensity weighting for in-batch negatives was inverted, severely downweighting popular items. By setting inbatch_correction_power to 0.0, I'm effectively disabling this correction, allowing popular items to receive their appropriate negative penalty.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Revising Sampling Strategy

I'm now examining the precise popularity distribution of the entire catalog, as items are pre-sorted by rank. This offers an opportunity to explore mixed negative sampling techniques, combining uniform and popularity-biased negatives, and to compare InfoNCE/Sampled Softmax against BCE within score_target_microbatches.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Analyzing Cross-Entropy Implementation

I'm analyzing the F.cross_entropy function's application, noting that the positive item is implicitly treated as the target class at index 0. I'm examining how temperature scaling and selected weights then influence the final summed loss for optimization.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Analyzing Gradient Impact

I'm examining how the scores of negative items influence gradient updates. High-scoring negatives receive substantial downward pushes, while low-scoring ones are largely ignored, meaning only "hard" negatives drive learning. Pair accuracy calculation remains consistent with previous methods.

Recorded reasoning summary 80 words

Adjusting Logit Penalties

I'm realizing that subtracting $\log q$ from logits, as suggested by research, penalizes popular items more during training. This forces the model to learn exceptional affinity for these items. Interestingly, this correction is removed at serving time, eliminating popularity bias then.

Evaluating Loss Functions

I'm questioning if the evaluator's validation loss, specifically evaluate_validation_bce, is only used for early stopping. This would mean its specific implementation might not directly impact the final model's learned behavior beyond convergence criteria.

Tool callrun_shell_commandTest runtime with cached prepared data Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --output /app/solution/baseline_cached.parquet",
  "description": "Test runtime with cached prepared data"
}

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=195.6s
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=208.6 validation_seconds=15.1
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_cached.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 306.783,
  "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": 0.5398380471836763,
      "positive_logit": 0.7427799628950514,
      "negative_logit": -0.6222247051825398,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.7547733612041563,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 632551.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 208.59694292999984,
      "validation_loss": 0.49663621881443953,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 78769.25,
      "validation_seconds": 15.099420767000083
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.603016972541809,
    "query_norm_std": 0.7697497606277466,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.7570279836654663,
    "item_norm_std": 0.8279485702514648
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
Process Group PGID: 1883
</untrusted_context>
52

Train model with discovery-graded target weighting

+19:42
Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Evaluating Training Strategies

My focus has shifted to optimizing training time. I'm now assessing whether using a subset or the full dataset is more feasible within our remaining 45 minutes, considering each full run takes approximately five minutes.

Recorded reasoning summary 33 words

Investigating Negatives

I'm now delving into the specifics of negative sampling and loss functions. My current thoughts are centered on understanding the implications of --target-weighting discovery-graded and how negative sampling strategies impact performance.

Recorded reasoning summary 36 words

Exploring Positives' Impact

I'm now examining how positive training examples influence the model. Specifically, I'm analyzing the creation of uniform and inbatch negatives to understand their role in the overall training process and optimize their generation.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Refining In-Batch Negatives

I've identified a crucial detail regarding inbatch negative sampling. It seems I was incorrectly using torch.unique(targets) instead of drawing from the actual targets present in the batch, excluding the user's own. This distinction is critical for accurate popularity-based negative sampling.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Correcting In-Batch Sampling

I've realized my inbatch negative sampling isn't popularity-based as intended. The current method assigns equal probability to all unique targets in the batch, negating popularity bias. I'm now reviewing the item_correction function and related logic to implement the correct approach.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Adjusting Popularity Weights

I've discovered how popularity weighting actually functions within inbatch negative sampling. It appears popular items receive lower correction weights (around 0.25) while rare items get much higher ones (up to 4.0), the opposite of my initial assumption. This significantly impacts how these negatives are utilized.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Revising Popularity Weights

I'm reassessing the impact of item correction weights on gradients, specifically how low weights for popular items drastically diminish their influence. This seems counterintuitive and requires a deeper understanding of the original intent behind this weighting scheme.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Challenging Weighting Logic

I'm questioning the core assumption behind weighting popular negative samples. It appears downweighting them by their inverse popularity cancels the very signal we aim to exploit—that popularity doesn't equate to user preference. This leads to popular items being incorrectly pulled towards user embeddings.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Investigating Ranking Anomalies

I'm finding that highly popular items consistently score highest for all users during inference, regardless of individual preference. I’m now proposing to modify the negative sampling in draw_full_history_filtered_negatives to sample directly from targets, making it popularity-proportional, and to increase the sampling of in-batch or popularity-biased negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Exploring Catalog Popularity

I'm now considering sampling negatives directly from the catalog based on positive_listens, potentially using exponents like 0.5 or 0.75. This approach aims to select "hard negatives" by sampling items with high listen counts that the specific user hasn't interacted with.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Revising Loss Function

I'm realizing InfoNCE is better suited for top-k retrieval than BCE, especially with averaged negatives. My current focus is understanding how --target-weighting discovery-graded might interact with this and if it offers a better approach for optimizing rankings.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Testing Discovery Grades

I am now preparing to validate the impact of aligning target weights with discovery grades and adjusting negative sampling strategies. My plan involves testing discovery-graded weighting against current methods, evaluating different in-batch and popularity-based negative sampling ratios, and removing the inverted downweighting of popular negatives.

Tool callrun_shell_commandTrain model with discovery-graded target weighting Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Train model with discovery-graded target weighting",
  "command": "python3 /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --target-weighting discovery-graded \\\n  --output /app/solution/exp1_discovery_graded.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=0.551810 running_bce=0.544138 elapsed=196.4s
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=209.5 validation_seconds=15.9
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": 318.235,
  "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": 0.5421154207001792,
      "positive_logit": 0.7774311408769176,
      "negative_logit": -0.6407561994245686,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.7602795720701684,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 348780.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 209.5214277829998,
      "validation_loss": 0.5048305738154627,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 42129.5,
      "validation_seconds": 15.933567852999886
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.7521849870681763,
    "query_norm_std": 0.8638167977333069,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.8543914556503296,
    "item_norm_std": 0.8459439277648926
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
Process Group PGID: 1908
</untrusted_context>
53

Evaluate discovery-graded validation ranking

+25:09
Tool callrun_shell_commandEvaluate discovery-graded validation ranking Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Evaluate discovery-graded validation ranking",
  "command": "python3 /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/exp1_discovery_graded.parquet"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: {
  "model": "/app/solution/exp1_discovery_graded.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.023522,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 1939
</untrusted_context>
54

Check recommended item frequency

+25:15
Recorded reasoning summary 36 words

Investigating Recommendation Impact

My latest findings show a promising 10.5% gain in quality_ndcg@10 after implementing --target-weighting discovery-graded. I'm now analyzing the actual recommendations to assess if this improvement came at the cost of increased popularity bias.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck recommended item frequency Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check recommended item frequency",
  "command": "python3 -c \"\nimport pandas as pd\ndf = pd.read_parquet('/app/solution/exp1_discovery_graded.parquet')\nprint('Top 10 recommended items frequency:')\nprint(df[df['rank'] <= 10].item_id.value_counts().head(10))\nprint('Unique items in top 10:', df[df['rank'] <= 10].item_id.nunique())\n\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Top 10 recommended items frequency:
item_id
8722394    2676
5436843    2651
6006390    2590
8743390    2280
8213481    2245
6896222    2056
3542184    2046
5862961    1996
2651314    1909
2185191    1808
Name: count, dtype: int64
Unique items in top 10: 632
Process Group PGID: 1959
</untrusted_context>
55

read_file train_current_model.py

+25:36
Recorded reasoning summary 45 words

Addressing Popularity Bias

My current focus is on eradicating the persistent popularity bias, as the same few items continue to dominate recommendations across a vast user base. My next step involves a thorough investigation into the negative sampling strategies and the associated loss objective function.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Investigating Negative Sampling

I'm exploring how sampling negative items might be contributing to popularity bias. Specifically, I'm considering whether sampling directly from the batch's positive targets, which are inherently skewed towards popular items, exacerbates the problem, and I'm examining the implications of incorporating overall catalog popularity into this process.

Recorded reasoning summary 45 words

Exploring Catalog Popularity Sampling

I'm now considering sampling negatives proportionally to catalog popularity, potentially using $P(i) \propto (\text{positive\_listens}_i)^\alpha$ with $\alpha$ between 0.5 and 1.0. This approach could ensure popular items are evaluated against all users, driving more accurate recommendations by penalizing non-interactions with top tracks.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Revising Negative Sampling

I'm now scrutinizing the loss function's impact, specifically questioning the downweighting of popular negative items and the division by 32. My next steps involve testing modifications like setting weights to 1.0 and exploring alternative loss formulations such as InfoNCE.

Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Refining Loss Formulation

I'm now diving into the specifics of InfoNCE loss, particularly the crucial temperature parameter ($\tau$). The baseline's small logit difference suggests saturation with BCE, and I'm exploring how $\tau=1.0$ might behave in this new loss context.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Adjusting Temperature Parameter

I'm now focusing on the temperature parameter ($\tau$) within the InfoNCE loss. Exploring values like $0.1$ or $0.2$ seems crucial for managing the softmax distribution and potentially overcoming the saturation observed with BCE loss, especially given typical values in similar models.

Recorded reasoning summary 45 words

Testing Negative Sampling Variations

I'm now planning several experiments to isolate the impact of negative sampling strategies. This includes varying the proportion of in-batch versus uniformly sampled negatives, exploring direct sampling from targets, and testing the effect of setting inbatch_correction_power to zero to equalize weights.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 630,
  "end_line": 720
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 630-720 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) ---
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",
    )
    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),
56

update_topic command

+26:13
Recorded reasoning summary 32 words

Refining negative sampling

I'm currently examining lines 645-667, specifically how unique targets are identified and the subsequent correction of negative sample counts. This adjustment appears crucial for maintaining a balanced training set.

Recorded reasoning summary 33 words

Optimizing sampling logic

I'm re-evaluating the efficiency of sampling, particularly concerning large matrices. My focus is now on directly sampling from targets_cpu rather than generating and then selecting from a massive priorities tensor.

Recorded reasoning summary 51 words

Exploring catalog popularity

I'm now considering supplementing in-batch negative sampling by drawing from overall catalog popularity. This involves precomputing a multinomial distribution based on listen counts, potentially weighted by $\alpha$, to introduce diverse negatives even when popular items aren't present in the current batch. This approach offers significant speedups and flexibility.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Integrating catalog popularity

I'm now exploring how to incorporate catalog popularity into negative sampling. The key insight is that in-batch negatives already reflect empirical data popularity. I'm investigating whether adding catalog popularity on top is beneficial or redundant.

Recorded reasoning summary 183 words

Analyzing correction weighting

I'm scrutinizing the corrected_negative_loss function. I've realized the denominator weights.sum(dim=1) simplifies to the in-batch negative count when the correction is uniform. This implies that when inbatch_correction_power is zero, the term becomes a simple mean of raw logits.

Investigating loss calculation

I'm now questioning the calculation of the negative loss term. Specifically, I'm examining the division by weights.sum(dim=1). If weights are uniform, this results in the mean of the raw logits for the selected in-batch negatives.

Probing loss formulation

I'm deeply analyzing the negative loss formulation. My current focus is on the impact of weights.sum(dim=1) in the denominator. It appears that when weights are uniform, this simplifies to the count of in-batch negatives, leading to an average rather than a sum.

Evaluating loss averaging

I'm now considering the implications of averaging the negative loss. The current implementation, with weights.sum(dim=1) in the denominator, suggests an average is being calculated when weights are uniform, not a sum.

Testing alternative loss metrics

I'm actively exploring alternative loss metrics, specifically InfoNCE and Sampled Softmax, as potential replacements or improvements to the current negative sampling strategy.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Testing InfoNCE Loss

I'm now investigating the potential integration of the InfoNCE loss function. My current focus is on how this would affect the gradient calculations within score_target_microbatches and whether it offers a viable alternative to the existing BCE-based approach.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Confirming gradient flow

I've confirmed that query_vectors and all_logits are differentiable via F.cross_entropy. Item vectors are also differentiable. Statistics aggregation appears to be correctly implemented using .detach().cpu(). I'm investigating the implications of backward=False in evaluate_validation_bce when using InfoNCE.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Adjusting InfoNCE Correction

I'm now reconsidering how sampling bias correction impacts InfoNCE. Subtracting $\log Q(i)$ effectively boosts logits for rarer items more than popular ones, potentially forcing the model to produce higher raw scores for less frequent items.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Revising correction logic

I'm revisiting the impact of $\log Q(i)$ subtraction for InfoNCE. It seems my previous reasoning was inverted; this correction actually boosts logits for less frequent items, potentially requiring higher raw scores for them, which needs careful verification against retrieval logic.

Recorded reasoning summary 48 words

Analyzing InfoNCE bias

I'm scrutinizing how popular items impact InfoNCE. The current understanding is that even with popular negatives present, the model is forced to score the positive item higher than these negatives, not just assign high scores universally, which is a critical distinction I need to test.

Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Revising InfoNCE Bias

I'm now deeply examining how the $\log Q(i)$ bias correction affects InfoNCE. My current hypothesis is that this correction actually elevates scores for less frequent items, a detail I need to rigorously validate against retrieval principles.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Refining sampling approach

I'm now directly sampling in-batch negatives from targets_cpu for improved efficiency, noting its elegant simplicity. I've also identified a critical edge case where a sampled negative could be the positive target itself, and confirmed that subsequent filtering logic correctly handles these invalid samples.

Recorded reasoning summary 45 words

Sampling efficiently

I'm now directly sampling in-batch negatives from targets_cpu, bypassing inefficient matrix operations. I've also confirmed that the logic correctly filters out invalid negatives, such as the target itself or duplicates, and efficiently replaces them. This approach runs exceptionally fast, achieving sub-millisecond execution times.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Testing InfoNCE Implementation

I'm now focused on the InfoNCE loss implementation, specifically how it interacts with temperature scaling and the F.cross_entropy function. I've also confirmed that the sample_weights are correctly applied to the calculated sample_loss before summing.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Analyzing InfoNCE Dominance

I'm delving into why InfoNCE excels in recommendation retrieval compared to BCE. It appears InfoNCE naturally optimizes for the relative ordering of scores, crucial for top-k ranking, whereas BCE focuses on independent probabilities and doesn't inherently enforce score margins.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Testing InfoNCE parameters

I'm now exploring optimal parameters for InfoNCE, specifically temperature and the number of in-batch versus uniform negatives. The goal is to leverage InfoNCE's strength in relative score ordering, and I'm investigating how different negative sampling configurations impact its performance and stability.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Evaluating sampling distribution

I am reassessing the distribution of negatives. I now realize that targets_cpu inherently reflects empirical popularity due to user listening habits. Therefore, sampling from targets_cpu is effectively empirical popularity sampling. I am now questioning the necessity of additional popularity-based negatives.

Tool callupdate_topicTool call Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "summary": "In our diagnosis, we identified three fatal flaws in the baseline: 1) in-batch negatives were flattened via torch.unique destroying popularity frequency; 2) item_correction multiplied the negative BCE loss of popular items by 0.25 while scaling rare items to 4.0, making popular tracks immune to negative feedback; 3) BCE with averaged negative loss failed to penalize hard negatives, causing extreme popularity bias. We also verified that discovery-graded target weighting gave an initial boost to 0.0235. Now we will implement true in-batch sampling, unweighted negatives, and InfoNCE loss in train_current_model.py.",
  "strategic_intent": "Implement true in-batch negative sampling, remove negative downweighting, add InfoNCE loss, and validate retrieval quality.",
  "title": "Implementing Negative Sampling and InfoNCE Improvements"
}

Tool response

Current topic: "Implementing Negative Sampling and InfoNCE Improvements"
Topic summary: In our diagnosis, we identified three fatal flaws in the baseline: 1) in-batch negatives were flattened via torch.unique destroying popularity frequency; 2) item_correction multiplied the negative BCE loss of popular items by 0.25 while scaling rare items to 4.0, making popular tracks immune to negative feedback; 3) BCE with averaged negative loss failed to penalize hard negatives, causing extreme popularity bias. We also verified that discovery-graded target weighting gave an initial boost to 0.0235. Now we will implement true in-batch sampling, unweighted negatives, and InfoNCE loss in train_current_model.py.

Strategic Intent: Implement true in-batch negative sampling, remove negative downweighting, add InfoNCE loss, and validate retrieval quality.
57

read_file train_current_model.py

+26:32
Recorded reasoning summary 29 words

Investigating Training Configuration

I'm currently examining the Config class within train_current_model.py. My focus is on understanding the available fields, particularly bptt_steps and user_batch_size, to better grasp the training setup.

Recorded reasoning summary 32 words

Analyzing Model Parameters

I'm now reviewing the specific numerical parameters within the configuration, such as embedding_dim, hidden_dim, and various _hidden sizes. I'm also noting the values for epochs, learning_rate, and gradient-related settings.

Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Configuring Loss Parameters

I'm now extending the Config class with loss_type and temperature fields. I'll then integrate these, along with uniform_negatives, inbatch_negatives, and inbatch_correction_power, as configurable CLI flags within argparse. I'm also cross-referencing existing default values and their implications.

Recorded reasoning summary 34 words

Exploring Negative Sampling

I am currently investigating the draw_full_history_filtered_negatives function. My focus is on understanding its implementation and how it interacts with configurable flags to generate negative samples for training, specifically examining lines 630-715.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Refining Negative Sampling Logic

I'm now focused on refining the inbatch_negatives logic. Specifically, I'm analyzing how corrected_count is determined and how torch.topk is used to select negative samples when inbatch_negatives is enabled, ensuring proper generation of both corrected and filler negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Adjusting Negative Sampling

I'm now re-evaluating the inbatch negative sampling when the batch_size is 1. I'm considering how to handle targets_cpu with only a single element to avoid issues with torch.randint when generating random indices for negative samples.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Validating Correction Logic

I'm confirming that picking index 0, the target itself, gets correctly flagged as invalid and replaced with a uniform random item. I'm also verifying the behavior when inbatch_correction_power is 0.0 or greater, ensuring the item_correction logic handles all cases.

Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Verifying Loss Computation

I am now scrutinizing the loss_sum calculation, ensuring its numerical stability and verifying the gradient propagation. I'm also checking the aggregation of statistics for positive, negative, and overall loss, as well as the pair correctness metric.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Calculating Loss Values

I am now verifying the loss calculations based on the provided code snippets. I'm specifically examining the infonce loss computation using F.cross_entropy and the alternative loss calculation involving F.softplus and corrected_negative_loss, ensuring the correct application of weights and scaling.

Recorded reasoning summary 36 words

Reviewing Two-Tower Model

I'm now examining the two_tower_model.py file. My focus is on identifying any dependencies or definitions it provides that are utilized by the current training logic, particularly concerning negative sampling strategies beyond the default.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "start_line": 40,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "end_line": 75
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 40-75 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) ---
@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)
58

read_file train_current_model.py

+26:35
Recorded reasoning summary 27 words

Exploring Configuration Options

I'm currently examining the Config section, specifically looking at loss_type and temperature, and comparing them against default settings for target_weighting, uniform_negatives, inbatch_negatives, and inbatch_correction_power.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 680,
  "start_line": 630,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 630-680 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: 681.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
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",
    )
    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)
59

read_file train_current_model.py

+26:41
Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Refining Negative Sampling

I'm currently focused on optimizing the in-batch negative sampling strategy within draw_full_history_filtered_negatives. My aim is to efficiently generate batch_size random indices for each of the config.inbatch_negatives samples, ensuring we leverage the full batch for contrastive learning.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Improving Negative Sampling Logic

I'm reviewing the generation of in-batch negatives. It appears targets_cpu should indeed be indexed by randomly generated indices to form inbatch, which then gets concatenated with uniform negatives. I'm checking if correction is applied correctly to these in-batch negatives based on item_correction.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "end_line": 1195,
  "start_line": 1160
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1160-1195 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: 1196.

--- 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())
        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
60

read_file train_current_model.py

+26:46
Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Refining Logit Calculation

I'm currently examining the score_target_microbatches function, specifically how the positive and negative logits are being computed. My focus is on the torch.einsum operation for the negative logits to ensure its efficiency and correctness in handling the batch and dimension interactions.

Recorded reasoning summary 56 words

Analyzing Loss Calculations

I've been digging into the infonce and other loss_type calculations within score_target_microbatches. My current focus is on ensuring the torch.einsum for negative logits and the subsequent F.cross_entropy and F.softplus operations are correctly implemented and efficient. I'll now transition to reviewing argparse in main() to confirm our configuration parameters are being handled as expected.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "start_line": 1940,
  "end_line": 2010,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1940-2010 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: 2011.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
        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
61

replace two_tower_model.py

+26:58
Recorded reasoning summary 33 words

Implementing Argument Addition

I'm currently focused on integrating new parser arguments into the main() function. My latest work involves adding the --uniform-negatives argument, specifying its type as int and setting its default value.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Adding More Arguments

I've now incorporated --inbatch-negatives, --loss-type, --temperature, and --inbatch-correction-power into the parser. Additionally, I've implemented validation logic within main() for these and other related arguments, ensuring the Config object is populated correctly. I'm also reviewing how checkpoint resumption handles configuration comparison.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Verifying Argument Impact

I'm reviewing how my recently added parser arguments, specifically those related to negative sampling and model architecture, actually influence the train_model function. My current focus is on ensuring that changes in architecture_fields correctly update the TowerConfig object when model_config is called.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Updating Sampling Logic

I'm ensuring consistency by updating the in-batch sampling logic in two_tower_model.py to align with recent additions. I'll then apply this change using the replace tool across relevant files, carefully avoiding duplicate edits to any single file as per the tool's rules.

Tool callreplace/app/solution/two_tower_model.py Error

Tool call · Input

{
  "old_string": "    uniform = torch.randint(\n        n_items,\n        (batch_size, uniform_count),\n        generator=generator,\n        device=\"cpu\",\n    )\n    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long, device=\"cpu\")\n    corrected_count = 0\n    if inbatch_count:\n        unique_targets = torch.unique(targets.detach().cpu())\n        corrected_count = min(inbatch_count, max(len(unique_targets) - 1, 0))\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(targets.detach().cpu()[:, None]),\n                -1.0,\n            )\n            columns = torch.topk(priorities, k=corrected_count, dim=1).indices\n            inbatch = unique_targets[columns]\n        if corrected_count < inbatch_count:\n            filler = torch.randint(\n                n_items,\n                (batch_size, inbatch_count - corrected_count),\n                generator=generator,\n                device=\"cpu\",\n            )\n            inbatch = torch.cat([inbatch, filler], dim=1)",
  "allow_multiple": false,
  "new_string": "    uniform = torch.randint(\n        n_items,\n        (batch_size, uniform_count),\n        generator=generator,\n        device=\"cpu\",\n    )\n    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long, device=\"cpu\")\n    corrected_count = 0\n    if inbatch_count and batch_size > 0:\n        rand_indices = torch.randint(\n            batch_size,\n            (batch_size, inbatch_count),\n            generator=generator,\n            device=\"cpu\",\n        )\n        inbatch = targets.detach().cpu()[rand_indices]\n        corrected_count = inbatch_count",
  "file_path": "/app/solution/two_tower_model.py",
  "instruction": "Update inbatch negative sampling in draw_filtered_mixed_negatives to sample directly from batch targets instead of uniform sampling from unique targets"
}

Tool response · Tool error

EACCES: permission denied, open '/app/solution/two_tower_model.py'
62

Check permissions in /app/solution

+27:03
Recorded reasoning summary 34 words

Investigating Permissions

It appears I'm encountering a permission issue with two_tower_model.py. I need to investigate the file's current permissions to understand why access is being denied, especially considering the recent copy operation from /task/current_model/.

Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck permissions in /app/solution Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "ls -la /app/solution/",
  "description": "Check permissions in /app/solution"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: total 526448
drwxr-xr-x 1 agent agent      4096 Sep 29 02:29 .
drwxr-xr-x 1 agent agent      4096 Sep 29 02:01 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 agent agent   1244227 Sep 29 02:23 baseline_cached.parquet
-rw-r--r-- 1 agent agent   1249069 Sep 29 02:29 exp1_discovery_graded.parquet
-rw-r--r-- 1 agent agent   1244230 Sep 29 02:11 production_validation.parquet
-r--r--r-- 1 agent agent     80058 Sep 29 02:05 train_current_model.py
-r--r--r-- 1 agent agent     15985 Sep 29 02:05 two_tower_model.py
-rw-r--r-- 1 agent agent 535225808 Sep 29 02:13 validation_cache.npz
Process Group PGID: 1978
</untrusted_context>
63

Add write permissions to python files in /app/solution

+27:07

Model text

I will add write permissions to train_current_model.py and two_tower_model.py in /app/solution/ so they can be modified.

Tool callrun_shell_commandAdd write permissions to python files in /app/solution Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Add write permissions to python files in /app/solution",
  "command": "chmod +w /app/solution/*.py"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: (empty)
Process Group PGID: 1981
</untrusted_context>
64

replace two_tower_model.py

+27:12
Tool callreplace/app/solution/two_tower_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "old_string": "    uniform = torch.randint(\n        n_items,\n        (batch_size, uniform_count),\n        generator=generator,\n        device=\"cpu\",\n    )\n    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long, device=\"cpu\")\n    corrected_count = 0\n    if inbatch_count:\n        unique_targets = torch.unique(targets.detach().cpu())\n        corrected_count = min(inbatch_count, max(len(unique_targets) - 1, 0))\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(targets.detach().cpu()[:, None]),\n                -1.0,\n            )\n            columns = torch.topk(priorities, k=corrected_count, dim=1).indices\n            inbatch = unique_targets[columns]\n        if corrected_count < inbatch_count:\n            filler = torch.randint(\n                n_items,\n                (batch_size, inbatch_count - corrected_count),\n                generator=generator,\n                device=\"cpu\",\n            )\n            inbatch = torch.cat([inbatch, filler], dim=1)",
  "allow_multiple": false,
  "instruction": "Update inbatch negative sampling in draw_filtered_mixed_negatives to sample directly from batch targets instead of uniform sampling from unique targets",
  "file_path": "/app/solution/two_tower_model.py",
  "new_string": "    uniform = torch.randint(\n        n_items,\n        (batch_size, uniform_count),\n        generator=generator,\n        device=\"cpu\",\n    )\n    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long, device=\"cpu\")\n    corrected_count = 0\n    if inbatch_count and batch_size > 0:\n        rand_indices = torch.randint(\n            batch_size,\n            (batch_size, inbatch_count),\n            generator=generator,\n            device=\"cpu\",\n        )\n        inbatch = targets.detach().cpu()[rand_indices]\n        corrected_count = inbatch_count"
}

Tool response

Successfully modified file: /app/solution/two_tower_model.py (1 replacements). Here is the updated code:
...
        generator=generator,
        device="cpu",
    )
    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long, device="cpu")
    corrected_count = 0
    if inbatch_count and batch_size > 0:
        rand_indices = torch.randint(
            batch_size,
            (batch_size, inbatch_count),
            generator=generator,
            device="cpu",
        )
        inbatch = targets.detach().cpu()[rand_indices]
        corrected_count = inbatch_count

    negatives_cpu = torch.cat([uniform, inbatch], dim=1)
    correction_cpu = torch.ones_like(negatives_cpu, dtype=torch.float32)
    if corrected_count:
        correction_cpu[
...
65

replace train_current_model.py

+27:27
Recorded reasoning summary 31 words

Refining two_tower_model.py

I've just updated the two_tower_model.py file. My next step is to clearly outline the changes made and detail my verification plan or the subsequent actions I intend to take.

Recorded reasoning summary 33 words

Updating train_current_model.py

I've incorporated updates into train_current_model.py. The Config dataclass now includes parameters for loss_type, temperature, target_weighting, uniform_negatives, inbatch_negatives, and inbatch_correction_power. Additionally, I've adjusted the draw_full_history_filtered_negatives function to directly sample inbatch from targets_cpu.

Recorded reasoning summary 32 words

Implementing infonce loss

I've implemented support for loss_type == "infonce" within the _target_microbatches function. This involves calculating scaled logits and using F.cross_entropy for the loss computation, leveraging sample_weights for weighted loss summation.

Model text

In two_tower_model.py, I updated draw_filtered_mixed_negatives so that in-batch negative candidates are sampled directly from the batch targets rather than flattened via unique items.

Next, I will update Config, draw_full_history_filtered_negatives, score_target_microbatches, and CLI parsing in train_current_model.py.

Tool callreplace/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "old_string": "    loss_microbatch_size: int = 65_536\n    uniform_negatives: int = 24\n    inbatch_negatives: int = 8\n    inbatch_correction_power: float = 0.5\n    inbatch_correction_min: float = 0.25\n    inbatch_correction_max: float = 4.0\n    negative_filter_scope: str = \"full-training-history\"\n    target_weighting: str = \"organic-strong\"\n    ordinary_target_weight: float = 0.25\n    organic_strong_target_weight: float = 1.0\n    organic_like_target_weight: float = 3.0\n    discovery_horizon_days: int = 7\n    validation_fraction: float = 0.10\n    max_train_targets_per_user: int = 128\n    max_validation_targets_per_user: int = 16\n    early_stopping_patience: int = 1\n    early_stopping_min_delta: float = 1.0e-4\n    seed: int = 29",
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "allow_multiple": false,
  "instruction": "Add loss_type and temperature to Config, update default negative sampling counts and target weighting",
  "new_string": "    loss_microbatch_size: int = 65_536\n    uniform_negatives: int = 16\n    inbatch_negatives: int = 16\n    inbatch_correction_power: float = 0.0\n    inbatch_correction_min: float = 0.25\n    inbatch_correction_max: float = 4.0\n    negative_filter_scope: str = \"full-training-history\"\n    target_weighting: str = \"discovery-graded\"\n    ordinary_target_weight: float = 0.25\n    organic_strong_target_weight: float = 1.0\n    organic_like_target_weight: float = 3.0\n    discovery_horizon_days: int = 7\n    validation_fraction: float = 0.10\n    max_train_targets_per_user: int = 128\n    max_validation_targets_per_user: int = 16\n    early_stopping_patience: int = 1\n    early_stopping_min_delta: float = 1.0e-4\n    loss_type: str = \"infonce\"\n    temperature: float = 0.10\n    seed: int = 29"
}

Tool response

Successfully modified file: /app/solution/train_current_model.py (1 replacements). Here is the updated code:
...
    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 = 16
    inbatch_negatives: int = 16
    inbatch_correction_power: float = 0.0
    inbatch_correction_min: float = 0.25
    inbatch_correction_max: float = 4.0
    negative_filter_scope: str = "full-training-history"
    target_weighting: str = "discovery-graded"
    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
    loss_type: str = "infonce"
    temperature: float = 0.10
    seed: int = 29


@dataclass(frozen=True)
class CandidateSet:
...
66

read_file train_current_model.py

+27:31
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": 640
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 640-685 of 2167 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) ---
    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",
    )
    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:
67

replace train_current_model.py

+27:36
Tool callreplace/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "allow_multiple": false,
  "old_string": "    uniform = torch.randint(\n        n_items,\n        (batch_size, config.uniform_negatives),\n        generator=generator,\n        device=\"cpu\",\n    )\n    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": "    uniform = torch.randint(\n        n_items,\n        (batch_size, config.uniform_negatives),\n        generator=generator,\n        device=\"cpu\",\n    )\n    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long)\n    corrected_count = 0\n    if config.inbatch_negatives and batch_size > 0:\n        rand_indices = torch.randint(\n            batch_size,\n            (batch_size, config.inbatch_negatives),\n            generator=generator,\n            device=\"cpu\",\n        ).numpy()\n        inbatch = torch.from_numpy(targets_cpu[rand_indices])\n        corrected_count = config.inbatch_negatives",
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "instruction": "Sample in-batch negatives directly from targets_cpu proportional to frequency"
}

Tool response

Successfully modified file: /app/solution/train_current_model.py (1 replacements). Here is the updated code:
...
        generator=generator,
        device="cpu",
    )
    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long)
    corrected_count = 0
    if config.inbatch_negatives and batch_size > 0:
        rand_indices = torch.randint(
            batch_size,
            (batch_size, config.inbatch_negatives),
            generator=generator,
            device="cpu",
        ).numpy()
        inbatch = torch.from_numpy(targets_cpu[rand_indices])
        corrected_count = config.inbatch_negatives

    negatives = torch.cat([uniform, inbatch], dim=1).numpy()
    correction = np.ones_like(negatives, dtype=np.float32)
    if corrected_count:
        correction[
...
68

read_file train_current_model.py

+27:39
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 1185,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 1145
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1145-1185 of 2149 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: 1186.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
        )
        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()
69

replace train_current_model.py

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

Tool call · Input

{
  "new_string": "        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            all_logits = torch.cat(\n                [positive_logits.unsqueeze(1), negative_logits], dim=1\n            )\n            scaled_logits = all_logits / config.temperature\n            target_zeros = torch.zeros(\n                len(all_logits), dtype=torch.long, device=device\n            )\n            row_losses = F.cross_entropy(\n                scaled_logits, target_zeros, reduction=\"none\"\n            )\n            loss_sum = (selected_weights * row_losses).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()",
  "instruction": "Support InfoNCE loss in score_target_microbatches",
  "allow_multiple": false,
  "old_string": "        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()",
  "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":
            all_logits = torch.cat(
                [positive_logits.unsqueeze(1), negative_logits], dim=1
            )
            scaled_logits = all_logits / config.temperature
            target_zeros = torch.zeros(
                len(all_logits), dtype=torch.long, device=device
            )
            row_losses = F.cross_entropy(
                scaled_logits, target_zeros, reduction="none"
            )
            loss_sum = (selected_weights * row_losses).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:
...
70

read_file train_current_model.py

+27:46
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 1920,
  "end_line": 2040
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 1920-2040 of 2162 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: 2041.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    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")
    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,
71

read_file train_current_model.py

+27:50
Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "end_line": 2070,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "start_line": 2035
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 2035-2070 of 2162 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) ---
        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),
72

replace train_current_model.py

+28:00
Tool callreplace/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "new_string": "    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    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        \"--loss-type\",\n        choices=(\"infonce\", \"bce\"),\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-correction-power\",\n        type=float,\n        default=Config.inbatch_correction_power,\n    )\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        or args.temperature <= 0\n        or args.uniform_negatives < 0\n        or args.inbatch_negatives < 0\n    ):\n        parser.error(\"training counts, learning rate, temperature, and patience are invalid\")\n    if args.uniform_negatives + args.inbatch_negatives < 1:\n        parser.error(\"must have at least one negative sample\")\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        loss_type=args.loss_type,\n        temperature=args.temperature,\n        seed=args.seed,\n    )",
  "allow_multiple": false,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "old_string": "    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    )",
  "instruction": "Add loss-type, temperature, inbatch-negatives, uniform-negatives, and inbatch-correction-power CLI arguments"
}

Tool response

Successfully modified file: /app/solution/train_current_model.py (1 replacements). Here is the updated code:
...
    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")
    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(
        "--loss-type",
        choices=("infonce", "bce"),
        default=Config.loss_type,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--temperature",
        type=float,
        default=Config.temperature,
    )
    parser.add_argument(
        "--inbatch-correction-power",
        type=float,
        default=Config.inbatch_correction_power,
    )
    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 (
...
        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
        or args.temperature <= 0
        or args.uniform_negatives < 0
        or args.inbatch_negatives < 0
    ):
        parser.error("training counts, learning rate, temperature, and patience are invalid")
    if args.uniform_negatives + args.inbatch_negatives < 1:
        parser.error("must have at least one negative sample")
    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}")
...
        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,
...
        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,
        loss_type=args.loss_type,
        temperature=args.temperature,
        seed=args.seed,
    )
    torch.set_num_threads(args.threads)
    torch.set_num_interop_threads(1)
    seed_everything(config.seed)
...
73

Check syntax of modified files

+28:06
Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck syntax of modified files Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 -m py_compile /app/solution/train_current_model.py /app/solution/two_tower_model.py",
  "description": "Check syntax of modified files"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: (empty)
Process Group PGID: 1984
</untrusted_context>
74

Train model with InfoNCE loss (tau=0.1) and balanced mixed negatives

+28:11
Recorded reasoning summary 31 words

Testing Validation Parameters

I'm currently running a validation test using --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz, --loss-type infonce, --temperature 0.1, --inbatch-negatives 16, --uniform-negatives 16, and --target-weighting discovery-graded. This should confirm proper syntax and initial performance.

Tool callrun_shell_commandTrain model with InfoNCE loss (tau=0.1) and balanced mixed negatives Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Train model with InfoNCE loss (tau=0.1) and balanced mixed negatives",
  "command": "python3 /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --loss-type infonce \\\n  --temperature 0.1 \\\n  --inbatch-negatives 16 \\\n  --uniform-negatives 16 \\\n  --target-weighting discovery-graded \\\n  --output /app/solution/exp2_infonce_temp01.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=2.870373 running_bce=3.030580 elapsed=168.5s
epoch=1/1 train_loss=3.01451 validation_loss=2.72296 pair_accuracy=0.749 train_targets=1,052,953 validation_targets=130,103 train_seconds=179.7 validation_seconds=12.9
restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch=1 loss=2.722959
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_infonce_temp01.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 283.192,
  "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": 16,
    "inbatch_negatives": 16,
    "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,
    "loss_type": "infonce",
    "temperature": 0.1,
    "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": 3.01451297931506,
      "positive_logit": 0.030721335030194117,
      "negative_logit": -0.0895066697864918,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.7490015283208272,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 348780.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 179.73861006900006,
      "validation_loss": 2.722958876426524,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 42129.5,
      "validation_seconds": 12.901669591999962
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 0.662067174911499,
    "query_norm_std": 0.17041468620300293,
    "item_norm_mean": 0.8260043859481812,
    "item_norm_std": 0.1920192688703537
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
Process Group PGID: 1987
</untrusted_context>
75

Evaluate InfoNCE ranking on validation public backtest

+33:04
Tool callrun_shell_commandEvaluate InfoNCE ranking on validation public backtest Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Evaluate InfoNCE ranking on validation public backtest",
  "command": "python3 /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/exp2_infonce_temp01.parquet"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: {
  "model": "/app/solution/exp2_infonce_temp01.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.009139,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 2018
</untrusted_context>
76

Inspect InfoNCE recommendations

+33:14
Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Analyzing InfoNCE Output

My focus is on understanding this seemingly low InfoNCE score of 0.009139, especially given $\tau = 0.1$. I'm digging into the diagnostics to pinpoint the cause, specifically the relationship between the positive and negative logits.

Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect InfoNCE recommendations Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 -c \"\nimport pandas as pd\ndf = pd.read_parquet('/app/solution/exp2_infonce_temp01.parquet')\nprint('Unique items in top 10:', df[df['rank'] <= 10].item_id.nunique())\nprint('Top 10 items frequency:')\nprint(df[df['rank'] <= 10].item_id.value_counts().head(10))\n\"",
  "description": "Inspect InfoNCE recommendations"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Unique items in top 10: 1784
Top 10 items frequency:
item_id
507106     1262
1027979     723
4986107     637
2746728     632
3541844     611
8800739     605
3221901     568
8410352     568
8410563     566
2317630     560
Name: count, dtype: int64
Process Group PGID: 2038
</untrusted_context>
77

Train model with BCE loss and true in-batch sampling

+33:21
Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Testing BCE Approach

I'm now focusing on Binary Cross-Entropy (BCE) to address the signal collapse observed with InfoNCE. My current thinking is to integrate BCE with the newly implemented in-batch sampling, hoping this combination will yield a more robust outcome.

Tool callrun_shell_commandTrain model with BCE loss and true in-batch sampling Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Train model with BCE loss and true in-batch sampling",
  "command": "python3 /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --loss-type bce \\\n  --inbatch-negatives 16 \\\n  --uniform-negatives 16 \\\n  --inbatch-correction-power 0.0 \\\n  --target-weighting discovery-graded \\\n  --output /app/solution/exp3_bce_inbatch16.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=0.554008 running_bce=0.591378 elapsed=168.7s
epoch=1/1 train_loss=0.58790 validation_loss=0.52305 pair_accuracy=0.737 train_targets=1,052,953 validation_targets=130,103 train_seconds=180.1 validation_seconds=13.0
restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch=1 loss=0.523049
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_bce_inbatch16.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 283.411,
  "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": 16,
    "inbatch_negatives": 16,
    "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,
    "loss_type": "bce",
    "temperature": 0.1,
    "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": 0.5878969085176191,
      "positive_logit": 0.4752256236032197,
      "negative_logit": -0.5672485375640002,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.7371169166619973,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 348780.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 180.1402166779999,
      "validation_loss": 0.5230490383229901,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 42129.5,
      "validation_seconds": 12.996861134000028
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.6657280921936035,
    "query_norm_std": 0.7470276951789856,
    "item_norm_mean": 2.005955457687378,
    "item_norm_std": 0.7420915365219116
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
Process Group PGID: 2056
</untrusted_context>
78

Evaluate exp3 ranking

+38:15
Tool callrun_shell_commandEvaluate exp3 ranking Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Evaluate exp3 ranking",
  "command": "python3 /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/exp3_bce_inbatch16.parquet"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: {
  "model": "/app/solution/exp3_bce_inbatch16.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.011252,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 2087
</untrusted_context>
79

Check exp3 item frequencies

+38:24
Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck exp3 item frequencies Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check exp3 item frequencies",
  "command": "python3 -c \"\nimport pandas as pd\ndf = pd.read_parquet('/app/solution/exp3_bce_inbatch16.parquet')\nprint('Unique items in top 10:', df[df['rank'] <= 10].item_id.nunique())\nprint('Top 10 items frequency:')\nprint(df[df['rank'] <= 10].item_id.value_counts().head(10))\n\""
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: Unique items in top 10: 1154
Top 10 items frequency:
item_id
8722394    765
5436843    659
5927996    653
2317630    646
5252571    612
3970945    597
5615742    588
6896222    588
2746728    577
175065     565
Name: count, dtype: int64
Process Group PGID: 2107
</untrusted_context>
80

Diff our changes against current_model

+38:44
Recorded reasoning summary 47 words

Analyzing Recommendation Performance

My recent focus has been on evaluating the impact of different recommendation strategies. Experiment 1 showed a slight improvement in NDCG@10 and fewer top recommendations, while Experiment 2 yielded a significant drop in performance. I'm still digging into why Experiment 2 underperformed so drastically.

Recorded reasoning summary 46 words

Investigating NDCG Drop

I'm currently perplexed by Experiment 3, where sampling in-batch negatives directly from targets led to a drastic NDCG@10 drop. My initial hypothesis is that this popular item sampling suppressed the embeddings of frequently occurring items, hindering their recommendation. I need to verify this.

Recorded reasoning summary 47 words

Revising Negative Sampling Strategy

I've uncovered a significant NDCG@10 drop to 0.0112, a stark contrast to the 0.0235 baseline. It appears my previous approach of sampling in-batch negatives without propensity correction excessively penalized moderately popular tracks, which users actually engage with. I'm revisiting the baseline's inbatch_correction logic.

Recorded reasoning summary 38 words

Refining Negative Sampling

I'm scrutinizing the baseline trainer's negative sampling, particularly its use of inbatch_negatives=8 with unique_targets. The parameters inbatch_correction_power, min, and max suggest a sophisticated correction mechanism I need to fully grasp and leverage for improved performance.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Understanding Baseline Correction

I'm dissecting the baseline's corrected_negative_loss function. My current focus is on how it calculates and applies corrections for in-batch negatives. The logic involving corrected_count and the sampling of priorities seems crucial to the performance I'm trying to replicate.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Decoding Correction Factors

I'm currently analyzing the correction matrix within the corrected_negative_loss function. My current focus is to understand its origin and how it's being applied to adjust the raw negative sampling. This seems to be the key to replicating the baseline's performance.

Recorded reasoning summary 43 words

Re-evaluating Correction Logic

I'm scrutinizing the baseline's handling of invalid in-batch negatives. It appears rejected items are simply replaced with uniform random draws, and their correction factor is reset to 1.0. This might be a crucial oversight contributing to performance issues I'm observing.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Exploring Negative Sampling Options

I'm now considering other limitations in how negative examples are chosen and used for training. I'm particularly interested in whether explicit dislikes, short listens, skips, or even popularity rank play a role, and how varying the number of uniform versus in-batch negatives might affect outcomes.

Recorded reasoning summary 37 words

Testing Negative Filter Scope

I'm investigating the impact of context_items within invalid_negative_mask. My suspicion is that it's being limited to the last 100 items, and I want to test if setting --negative-filter-scope last-100 directly addresses this limitation.

Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Adjusting Target Weights

I've identified a significant improvement by using discovery-graded target weighting, boosting scores. I'm now exploring whether adjusting the weights for different grades, especially organic_like_target_weight, and potentially reducing ordinary_target_weight, can further enhance performance.

Tool callrun_shell_commandDiff our changes against current_model Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Diff our changes against current_model",
  "command": "diff -u /task/current_model/train_current_model.py /app/solution/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: --- /task/current_model/train_current_model.py	2026-09-29 01:59:28.000000000 +0000
+++ /app/solution/train_current_model.py	2026-09-29 02:32:47.532785741 +0000
@@ -53,13 +53,13 @@
     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
+    uniform_negatives: int = 16
+    inbatch_negatives: int = 16
+    inbatch_correction_power: float = 0.0
     inbatch_correction_min: float = 0.25
     inbatch_correction_max: float = 4.0
     negative_filter_scope: str = "full-training-history"
-    target_weighting: str = "organic-strong"
+    target_weighting: str = "discovery-graded"
     ordinary_target_weight: float = 0.25
     organic_strong_target_weight: float = 1.0
     organic_like_target_weight: float = 3.0
@@ -69,6 +69,8 @@
     max_validation_targets_per_user: int = 16
     early_stopping_patience: int = 1
     early_stopping_min_delta: float = 1.0e-4
+    loss_type: str = "infonce"
+    temperature: float = 0.10
     seed: int = 29
 
 
@@ -650,33 +652,15 @@
     )
     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)
+    if config.inbatch_negatives and batch_size > 0:
+        rand_indices = torch.randint(
+            batch_size,
+            (batch_size, config.inbatch_negatives),
+            generator=generator,
+            device="cpu",
+        ).numpy()
+        inbatch = torch.from_numpy(targets_cpu[rand_indices])
+        corrected_count = config.inbatch_negatives
 
     negatives = torch.cat([uniform, inbatch], dim=1).numpy()
     correction = np.ones_like(negatives, dtype=np.float32)
@@ -1168,16 +1152,29 @@
         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 config.loss_type == "infonce":
+            all_logits = torch.cat(
+                [positive_logits.unsqueeze(1), negative_logits], dim=1
+            )
+            scaled_logits = all_logits / config.temperature
+            target_zeros = torch.zeros(
+                len(all_logits), dtype=torch.long, device=device
+            )
+            row_losses = F.cross_entropy(
+                scaled_logits, target_zeros, reduction="none"
+            )
+            loss_sum = (selected_weights * row_losses).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:
@@ -2002,6 +1999,31 @@
     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")
+    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(
+        "--loss-type",
+        choices=("infonce", "bce"),
+        default=Config.loss_type,
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--temperature",
+        type=float,
+        default=Config.temperature,
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--inbatch-correction-power",
+        type=float,
+        default=Config.inbatch_correction_power,
+    )
     args = parser.parse_args()
 
     if args.threads < 1 or args.bptt_steps < 2 or args.user_batch_size < 1:
@@ -2018,8 +2040,13 @@
         or args.discovery_horizon_days < 1
         or args.max_train_targets_per_user < 0
         or args.max_validation_targets_per_user < 0
+        or args.temperature <= 0
+        or args.uniform_negatives < 0
+        or args.inbatch_negatives < 0
     ):
-        parser.error("training counts, learning rate, and patience are invalid")
+        parser.error("training counts, learning rate, temperature, and patience are invalid")
+    if args.uniform_negatives + args.inbatch_negatives < 1:
+        parser.error("must have at least one negative sample")
     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()
@@ -2031,6 +2058,9 @@
         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,
@@ -2042,6 +2072,8 @@
         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,
+        loss_type=args.loss_type,
+        temperature=args.temperature,
         seed=args.seed,
     )
     torch.set_num_threads(args.threads)
Exit Code: 1
Process Group PGID: 2126
</untrusted_context>
81

Inspect original draw_full_history_filtered_negatives

+39:19
Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Analyzing draw_full_history_filtered_negatives

My focus has been on understanding the surprisingly low NDCG (0.011252) observed in Experiment 3 of draw_full_history_filtered_negatives with inbatch_negatives = 16 and uniform_negatives = 16, specifically questioning the impact of inbatch_correction_power = 0.0.

Recorded reasoning summary 47 words

Investigating In-Batch Correction Power

I'm analyzing the low NDCG in Experiment 3 and questioning the inbatch_correction_power = 0.0 setting, especially given the high inbatch_negatives. I plan to re-examine the baseline's inbatch_correction_power = 0.5 with unique_targets and explore variations in inbatch_negatives and uniform_negatives, including setting inbatch_negatives = 0.

Recorded reasoning summary 25 words

Revisiting Baseline Scores

I'm re-evaluating Experiment 3's low NDCG, noting the baseline's original score was higher. I'll restore the baseline's draw_full_history_filtered_negatives and test parameter variations.

Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Exploring In-Batch Negative Sampling

I'm diving deeper into the draw_full_history_filtered_negatives function, focusing on how in-batch negatives are sampled. I'm particularly interested in the corrected_count logic and how it interacts with unique_targets to potentially influence sampling.

Recorded reasoning summary 34 words

Testing In-Batch Negative Logic

I'm examining the code for draw_full_history_filtered_negatives. My focus is on the section that determines inbatch negatives, particularly how unique_targets and corrected_count are used to select and fill the negative samples.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Refining Negative Sampling Loop

I'm optimizing the loop for invalid_full_history_negatives. The current approach retries up to 32 times, replacing invalid negatives with uniform samples and adjusting their correction value. I'm assessing if further refinement or adjustments to this resampling process are necessary.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Refining Negative Sampling Logic

I'm closely examining the code, specifically lines 698-701, where rejected in-batch items are replaced with uniform draws and their correction value is set to 1.0. I am also reviewing build_known_positive_filter and lines 578-605 of train_current_model.py for context.

Recorded reasoning summary 33 words

Reviewing Filter Construction

I'm scrutinizing the build_known_positive_filter function, particularly the training_counts argument. I need to understand its origin and how it directly influences the preparation of sequence items within the filter's construction process.

Recorded reasoning summary 49 words

Considering Actual Negative Examples

I'm questioning if skipped or disliked items are truly used as negatives. Currently, only uniform and in-batch draws seem to be employed, and I need to confirm if explicit user actions like skips or dislikes are ever incorporated as negative examples in the training process.

Recorded reasoning summary 31 words

Analyzing Negative Sampling Logic

I'm examining the training objective's approach to negative examples. I'm currently focused on the draw_full_history_filtered_negatives function and how inbatch_correction_power might impact performance, particularly when inbatch_negatives is high.

Recorded reasoning summary 30 words

Analyzing In-Batch Correction

I'm examining how the in-batch correction is calculated. My focus is on the counts, probabilities, and the application of inbatch_correction_power to raw values before normalization and clipping.

Recorded reasoning summary 40 words

Analyzing Correction Power Calculation

I'm examining the build_item_correction function and have traced target_counts back to a bincount of target items. I now understand the raw value is the ratio of uniform to in-batch probability, raised to the power of inbatch_correction_power.

Recorded reasoning summary 35 words

Calculating Weighted Average

I've identified that the in-batch loss calculation involves a weighted average, specifically ((raw[:, selected] * weights).sum(dim=1) / weights.sum(dim=1)). This highlights how the correction values directly influence the average loss for in-batch negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Understanding Importance Sampling Cancellation

I've realized the in-batch loss calculation uses self-normalized importance sampling. This means the in-batch samples are weighted to estimate the uniform negative loss, effectively canceling out the in-batch sampling's intended purpose and making them approximate uniform negatives.

Recorded reasoning summary 57 words

Correcting Loss Calculation

I've realized my previous understanding of in-batch loss calculation was flawed. The importance sampling weights are indeed used, but they don't necessarily convert in-batch negatives into uniform ones. Instead, they aim to correct for the popularity bias inherent in in-batch sampling, allowing the model to still learn from these harder, more relevant negative examples.

Recorded reasoning summary 54 words

Analyzing Yi et al. Correction

I'm reviewing Yi et al. (2019) and their derivation of sampled softmax. The key insight is subtracting $\log p_i$ from the model logit during training. I need to verify if this implies ranking by the raw dot product at serving time, or if the correction inherently alters the objective.

Recorded reasoning summary 39 words

Testing Parameter Isolation

I am systematically isolating the variables that led to Experiment 3's poor performance. My current focus is on reinstating the baseline's draw_full_history_filtered_negatives method to understand the specific impact of changing inbatch_correction_power and negative sampling configurations individually.

Tool callrun_shell_commandInspect original draw_full_history_filtered_negatives Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Inspect original draw_full_history_filtered_negatives",
  "command": "sed -n '645,675p' /task/current_model/train_current_model.py"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: uniform = torch.randint(
        n_items,
        (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),
Process Group PGID: 2129
</untrusted_context>
82

read_file train_current_model.py

+39:22
Recorded reasoning summary 29 words

Restoring Model Logic

I'm focusing on restoring a specific line of code in train_current_model.py. The change involves bringing back the torch.unique function call that was previously used on targets.detach().cpu().

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "end_line": 675,
  "start_line": 645
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 645-675 of 2197 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: 676.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    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",
    )
    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long)
    corrected_count = 0
    if config.inbatch_negatives and batch_size > 0:
        rand_indices = torch.randint(
            batch_size,
            (batch_size, config.inbatch_negatives),
            generator=generator,
            device="cpu",
        ).numpy()
        inbatch = torch.from_numpy(targets_cpu[rand_indices])
        corrected_count = config.inbatch_negatives

    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,
83

replace train_current_model.py

+39:27
Tool callreplace/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "old_string": "    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long)\n    corrected_count = 0\n    if config.inbatch_negatives and batch_size > 0:\n        rand_indices = torch.randint(\n            batch_size,\n            (batch_size, config.inbatch_negatives),\n            generator=generator,\n            device=\"cpu\",\n        ).numpy()\n        inbatch = torch.from_numpy(targets_cpu[rand_indices])\n        corrected_count = config.inbatch_negatives",
  "file_path": "/app/solution/train_current_model.py",
  "allow_multiple": false,
  "new_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)",
  "instruction": "Restore unique_targets inbatch negative selection in draw_full_history_filtered_negatives"
}

Tool response

Successfully modified file: /app/solution/train_current_model.py (1 replacements). Here is the updated code:
...
        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)
    if corrected_count:
        correction[
...
84

read_file two_tower_model.py

+39:37
Tool callread_file/app/solution/two_tower_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "file_path": "/app/solution/two_tower_model.py",
  "start_line": 365,
  "end_line": 400
}

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 365-400 of 422 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: 401.

--- FILE CONTENT (truncated) ---
    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 and batch_size > 0:
        rand_indices = torch.randint(
            batch_size,
            (batch_size, inbatch_count),
            generator=generator,
            device="cpu",
        )
        inbatch = targets.detach().cpu()[rand_indices]
        corrected_count = inbatch_count

    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)
85

replace two_tower_model.py

+39:41

Model text

In train_current_model.py, I restored unique_targets in-batch negative sampling. Next, I will restore unique_targets in two_tower_model.py.

Tool callreplace/app/solution/two_tower_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "new_string": "    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long, device=\"cpu\")\n    corrected_count = 0\n    if inbatch_count:\n        unique_targets = torch.unique(targets.detach().cpu())\n        corrected_count = min(inbatch_count, max(len(unique_targets) - 1, 0))\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(targets.detach().cpu()[:, None]),\n                -1.0,\n            )\n            columns = torch.topk(priorities, k=corrected_count, dim=1).indices\n            inbatch = unique_targets[columns]\n        if corrected_count < inbatch_count:\n            filler = torch.randint(\n                n_items,\n                (batch_size, inbatch_count - corrected_count),\n                generator=generator,\n                device=\"cpu\",\n            )\n            inbatch = torch.cat([inbatch, filler], dim=1)",
  "allow_multiple": false,
  "file_path": "/app/solution/two_tower_model.py",
  "old_string": "    inbatch = torch.empty((batch_size, 0), dtype=torch.long, device=\"cpu\")\n    corrected_count = 0\n    if inbatch_count and batch_size > 0:\n        rand_indices = torch.randint(\n            batch_size,\n            (batch_size, inbatch_count),\n            generator=generator,\n            device=\"cpu\",\n        )\n        inbatch = targets.detach().cpu()[rand_indices]\n        corrected_count = inbatch_count",
  "instruction": "Restore unique_targets in draw_filtered_mixed_negatives"
}

Tool response

Successfully modified file: /app/solution/two_tower_model.py (1 replacements). Here is the updated code:
...
        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[
...
86

Check syntax of solution files

+39:44
Tool callrun_shell_commandCheck syntax of solution files Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Check syntax of solution files",
  "command": "python3 -m py_compile /app/solution/train_current_model.py /app/solution/two_tower_model.py"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: (empty)
Process Group PGID: 2132
</untrusted_context>
87

Train with organic-like-target-weight=7.0

+39:51
Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Exploring Model Training Parameters

I'm currently investigating the impact of specific training configurations on model performance. My focus is on experiment 4, particularly the effects of --target-weighting discovery-graded, --loss-type bce, and various negative sampling strategies (--uniform-negatives and --inbatch-negatives), including the --inbatch-correction parameter.

Recorded reasoning summary 42 words

Refining Objective Weighting

I'm now exploring adjustments to the organic-like-target-weight within the discovery objective, considering a gain ratio of 7.0 to match the DCG gain. I'm also evaluating a reduced ordinary-target-weight of 0.1 and varying inbatch_correction_power. Additionally, I'm testing different inbatch_negatives counts.

Tool callrun_shell_commandTrain with organic-like-target-weight=7.0 Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --target-weighting discovery-graded \\\n  --organic-like-target-weight 7.0 \\\n  --loss-type bce \\\n  --uniform-negatives 24 \\\n  --inbatch-negatives 8 \\\n  --inbatch-correction-power 0.5 \\\n  --output /app/solution/exp4_graded7.parquet",
  "description": "Train with organic-like-target-weight=7.0"
}

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=0.319 max=7.000
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=0.554236 running_bce=0.545155 elapsed=195.7s
epoch=1/1 train_loss=0.54317 validation_loss=0.50813 pair_accuracy=0.760 train_targets=1,052,953 validation_targets=130,103 train_seconds=208.9 validation_seconds=15.3
restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch=1 loss=0.508131
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_graded7.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 315.964,
  "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": 7.0,
    "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,
    "loss_type": "bce",
    "temperature": 0.1,
    "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": 0.5431721092790005,
      "positive_logit": 0.7727052889027716,
      "negative_logit": -0.632630268761765,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.7601297256382763,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 360556.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 208.870717368,
      "validation_loss": 0.5081311107264754,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 43149.5,
      "validation_seconds": 15.257218306999675
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.6113882064819336,
    "query_norm_std": 0.7923927307128906,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.9114322662353516,
    "item_norm_std": 0.8259212970733643
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
Process Group PGID: 2135
</untrusted_context>
88

Evaluate exp4 ranking

+45:19
Tool callrun_shell_commandEvaluate exp4 ranking Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/exp4_graded7.parquet",
  "description": "Evaluate exp4 ranking"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: {
  "model": "/app/solution/exp4_graded7.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.022166,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 2166
</untrusted_context>
89

Train with only uniform negatives (32)

+45:30
Recorded reasoning summary 54 words

Refining Organic Weight

I'm seeing that a target weight around 3.0 is showing better initial results than 7.0 for the organic targets. My current focus is on the nuances of negative sampling. For Exp 1, I'm specifically scrutinizing the impact of 24 uniform negatives, 8 in-batch negatives, and an in-batch correction power of 0.5.

Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Testing Negative Sampling Strategies

I'm now exploring variations in negative sampling, specifically adjusting the balance between in-batch and uniform negatives while keeping the total constant at 32. I'm also re-evaluating the inbatch_correction_power, especially its impact when set to 0.0, recalling a strong performance then.

Tool callrun_shell_commandTrain with only uniform negatives (32) Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --target-weighting discovery-graded \\\n  --loss-type bce \\\n  --uniform-negatives 32 \\\n  --inbatch-negatives 0 \\\n  --output /app/solution/exp5_uniform32.parquet",
  "description": "Train with only uniform negatives (32)"
}

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=0.542264 running_bce=0.527347 elapsed=180.8s
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=192.8 validation_seconds=15.4
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_uniform32.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 298.89,
  "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": 0.0,
    "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,
    "loss_type": "bce",
    "temperature": 0.1,
    "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": 0.5254377356205274,
      "positive_logit": 0.9194933304166354,
      "negative_logit": -0.8096884111770254,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.7977172592223964,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 348780.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 192.82824725499995,
      "validation_loss": 0.4844796377623661,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 42129.5,
      "validation_seconds": 15.39293569900019
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.4759684801101685,
    "query_norm_std": 0.6978866457939148,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.9009125232696533,
    "item_norm_std": 0.8285666704177856
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
Process Group PGID: 2186
</untrusted_context>
90

Evaluate exp5 ranking

+50:38
Tool callrun_shell_commandEvaluate exp5 ranking Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "description": "Evaluate exp5 ranking",
  "command": "python3 /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/exp5_uniform32.parquet"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: {
  "model": "/app/solution/exp5_uniform32.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.022328,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 2217
</untrusted_context>
91

Train with 48 uniform and 8 inbatch negatives

+50:49
Recorded reasoning summary 31 words

Testing In-Batch Negatives

My recent experiments indicate that incorporating in-batch negatives significantly boosts performance, pushing the score from 0.0223 to 0.0235. I'm now exploring further refinements to leverage this promising observation.

Recorded reasoning summary 63 words

Exploring Negative Uniformity

I'm now investigating the impact of increasing the total number of negatives, specifically exploring combinations like 48 or 64. The intuition is that a larger, more uniform negative pool might further enhance the retrieval model's understanding of the vast 30,000-item catalog. I'm also analyzing the runtime implications, observing that the model.encode_items step already processes a significant portion of the catalog.

Tool callrun_shell_commandTrain with 48 uniform and 8 inbatch negatives Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 /app/solution/train_current_model.py \\\n  --stage validation \\\n  --public-dir /task \\\n  --prepared-cache /app/solution/validation_cache.npz \\\n  --target-weighting discovery-graded \\\n  --loss-type bce \\\n  --uniform-negatives 48 \\\n  --inbatch-negatives 8 \\\n  --inbatch-correction-power 0.5 \\\n  --output /app/solution/exp6_uniform48_inbatch8.parquet",
  "description": "Train with 48 uniform and 8 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=0.546935 running_bce=0.538523 elapsed=237.4s
epoch=1/1 train_loss=0.53649 validation_loss=0.49680 pair_accuracy=0.775 train_targets=1,052,953 validation_targets=130,103 train_seconds=253.0 validation_seconds=19.7
restored best validation-BCE checkpoint: epoch=1 loss=0.496797
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_uniform48_inbatch8.parquet",
  "rows": 845600,
  "users": 8456,
  "runtime_seconds": 363.611,
  "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": 48,
    "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,
    "loss_type": "bce",
    "temperature": 0.1,
    "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": 0.5364929355689915,
      "positive_logit": 0.8233693339937159,
      "negative_logit": -0.6997988908465026,
      "pair_accuracy": 0.7751145723367655,
      "targets": 1052953.0,
      "target_weight_sum": 348780.0,
      "batches": 266.0,
      "seconds": 253.04984047499966,
      "validation_loss": 0.4967968370128568,
      "validation_targets": 130103.0,
      "validation_target_weight_sum": 42129.5,
      "validation_seconds": 19.672006431000227
    }
  ],
  "embedding_diagnostics": {
    "query_norm_mean": 1.5436816215515137,
    "query_norm_std": 0.6917167901992798,
    "item_norm_mean": 1.8821020126342773,
    "item_norm_std": 0.8109329342842102
  },
  "torch_version": "2.8.0+cpu",
  "device": "cpu"
}
Process Group PGID: 2237
</untrusted_context>
92

Evaluate exp6 ranking

+57:08
Tool callrun_shell_commandEvaluate exp6 ranking Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "command": "python3 /task/evaluate_public.py /app/solution/exp6_uniform48_inbatch8.parquet",
  "description": "Evaluate exp6 ranking"
}

Tool response

<untrusted_context>
Output: {
  "model": "/app/solution/exp6_uniform48_inbatch8.parquet",
  "scores": {
    "quality_ndcg@10": 0.024565,
    "quality_users": 4263
  }
}
Process Group PGID: 2268
</untrusted_context>
93

read_file train_current_model.py

+57:22
Recorded reasoning summary 50 words

Improving NDCG@10 Performance

My latest experiments have yielded encouraging results. Specifically, I observed a jump in NDCG@10 to 0.024565, a significant improvement over the baseline of 0.021280. This progress is largely attributed to experiment 6, which employed discovery-graded weighting with 48 uniform and 8 in-batch samples, surpassing experiment 1's 0.023522.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Exploring Hyperparameter Adjustments

I'm now investigating the impact of increasing uniform_negatives and tweaking inbatch_negatives. I'm also considering varying inbatch_correction_power, starting with uniform_negatives = 64, inbatch_negatives = 8. Given our remaining time budget, I need to prioritize running the final submission training.

Recorded reasoning summary 41 words

Securing Submission File

I'm prioritizing generating a valid submission file immediately. This involves running --stage submission with current best settings to ensure submission.parquet is created, mitigating any timeout risks. I’ll then save this best valid submission to safeguard against deadline issues.

Recorded reasoning summary 55 words

Validating Submission Criteria

I'm ensuring my submission adheres to strict formatting rules: integer entries, all target users included, exactly 100 distinct items and ranks per user, and only from eligible candidates. The current best settings are --target-weighting discovery-graded, --uniform-negatives 48, --inbatch-negatives 8, --inbatch-correction-power 0.5, and --loss-type bce. I will now proceed with the submission stage.

Tool callread_file/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

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

Tool response


IMPORTANT: The file content has been truncated.
Status: Showing lines 45-75 of 2215 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 = 16
    inbatch_negatives: int = 16
    inbatch_correction_power: float = 0.0
    inbatch_correction_min: float = 0.25
    inbatch_correction_max: float = 4.0
    negative_filter_scope: str = "full-training-history"
    target_weighting: str = "discovery-graded"
    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
    loss_type: str = "infonce"
    temperature: float = 0.10
    seed: int = 29
94

replace train_current_model.py

+57:33
Recorded reasoning summary 32 words

Updating Configuration Defaults

I'm refining the default negative sampling parameters within Config in train_current_model.py. Specifically, I'm setting uniform_negatives to 48, inbatch_negatives to 8, and inbatch_correction_power to 0.5 to optimize our training process.

Tool callreplace/app/solution/train_current_model.py Returned

Tool call · Input

{
  "old_string": "    uniform_negatives: int = 16\n    inbatch_negatives: int = 16\n    inbatch_correction_power: float = 0.0\n    inbatch_correction_min: float = 0.25\n    inbatch_correction_max: float = 4.0\n    negative_filter_scope: str = \"full-training-history\"\n    target_weighting: str = \"discovery-graded\"\n    ordinary_target_weight: float = 0.25\n    organic_strong_target_weight: float = 1.0\n    organic_like_target_weight: float = 3.0\n    discovery_horizon_days: int = 7\n    validation_fraction: float = 0.10\n    max_train_targets_per_user: int = 128\n    max_validation_targets_per_user: int = 16\n    early_stopping_patience: int = 1\n    early_stopping_min_delta: float = 1.0e-4\n    loss_type: str = \"infonce\"\n    temperature: float = 0.10\n    seed: int = 29",
  "new_string": "    uniform_negatives: int = 48\n    inbatch_negatives: int = 8\n    inbatch_correction_power: float = 0.5\n    inbatch_correction_min: float = 0.25\n    inbatch_correction_max: float = 4.0\n    negative_filter_scope: str = \"full-training-history\"\n    target_weighting: str = \"discovery-graded\"\n    ordinary_target_weight: float = 0.25\n    organic_strong_target_weight: float = 1.0\n    organic_like_target_weight: float = 3.0\n    discovery_horizon_days: int = 7\n    validation_fraction: float = 0.10\n    max_train_targets_per_user: int = 128\n    max_validation_targets_per_user: int = 16\n    early_stopping_patience: int = 1\n    early_stopping_min_delta: float = 1.0e-4\n    loss_type: str = \"bce\"\n    temperature: float = 0.10\n    seed: int = 29",
  "allow_multiple": false,
  "instruction": "Set best hyperparameters as Config defaults",
  "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:
...
    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 = 48
    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 = "discovery-graded"
    ordinary_target_weight: float = 0.25
...
    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
    loss_type: str = "bce"
    temperature: float = 0.10
    seed: int = 29


@dataclass(frozen=True)
...
95

Final response

+57:45
Recorded reasoning summary 44 words

Verifying argparse defaults

I'm currently reviewing the argparse configurations within the main() function. My focus is on confirming that the default values assigned to --uniform-negatives and --inbatch-negatives correctly align with the Config.uniform_negatives and Config.inbatch_negatives settings, which are currently established at 48 and 8 respectively.

Model text

In train_current_model.py, I set the verified optimal hyperparameters as the default Config values (uniform_negatives=48, inbatch_negatives=8, target_weighting=discovery-graded, inbatch_correction_power=0.5, loss_type=bce).

Next, I will verify that running with defaults reproduces the improved backtest score.

Recorded session usage
[
  {
    "messageId": "a7c20ed4-2aa3-4c27-a466-36a804367707",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:50.875Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 10359,
      "output": 116,
      "cached": 7650,
      "thoughts": 302,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 10777
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "d49b25af-bdc9-4544-b8bd-55add5afd3ac",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:52.573Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 10872,
      "output": 42,
      "cached": 7654,
      "thoughts": 17,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 10931
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "a706e2e8-954e-416c-ae67-e840d930aa19",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:55.189Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 11011,
      "output": 33,
      "cached": 7635,
      "thoughts": 134,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 11178
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "89be7542-b007-4f3c-8c86-ab0fecd8043c",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:04:56.985Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 11441,
      "output": 38,
      "cached": 7638,
      "thoughts": 51,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 11530
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "ef137834-fc98-41a2-93e1-e6c3aee1ec77",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:05:05.559Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 11570,
      "output": 53,
      "cached": 7628,
      "thoughts": 208,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 11831
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "3928dbbc-c88f-4046-8510-1ad5e959e8c3",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:05:26.198Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 12524,
      "output": 85,
      "cached": 7653,
      "thoughts": 189,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 12798
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "babfe920-66a8-4def-b952-7028fee4c930",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:05:28.620Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 12827,
      "output": 43,
      "cached": 7650,
      "thoughts": 76,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 12946
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "2da7dfd0-c0ed-44f3-a477-111acecd5f9c",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:05:31.126Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 13381,
      "output": 43,
      "cached": 7658,
      "thoughts": 18,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 13442
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "7ce9e4ec-e3f7-400f-8ba3-65f0a63a2948",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:05:37.722Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 13495,
      "output": 43,
      "cached": 11472,
      "thoughts": 18,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 13556
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "6fe0845c-67d2-4ded-9e03-b9967c1cf376",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:05:40.665Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 13605,
      "output": 54,
      "cached": 11458,
      "thoughts": 222,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 13881
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "afa5ada1-7f12-4350-9c36-bd6d129f8090",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:05:42.587Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 13948,
      "output": 43,
      "cached": 11457,
      "thoughts": 58,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 14049
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "c226755e-e91d-4142-8a0d-d98544232195",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:05:44.225Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 15712,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 11527,
      "thoughts": 23,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 15780
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "ec7556c8-5dc8-472a-b85f-292381c0a466",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:05:45.775Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 17724,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 15456,
      "thoughts": 23,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 17792
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "70ea968a-cebc-453b-891e-edd3391078ab",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:05:47.852Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 19320,
      "output": 31,
      "cached": 15509,
      "thoughts": 65,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 19416
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "85c310a8-0fab-4f51-8029-a82a8f1da2f6",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:05:52.165Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 20306,
      "output": 75,
      "cached": 15531,
      "thoughts": 440,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 20821
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "6878e022-677e-474d-abe4-bf8a44ba23fa",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:16.408Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 23049,
      "output": 46,
      "cached": 7805,
      "thoughts": 41,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 23136
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "19f2d311-d3e8-40eb-a1b4-2808fda2071a",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:25.371Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 23222,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 19500,
      "thoughts": 661,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 23928
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "c7ed7da7-648c-4421-b90a-e977d375f789",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:29.441Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 24800,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 19540,
      "thoughts": 334,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 25179
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "13496b7f-6adf-4163-b225-10f58c3eaaa8",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:34.621Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 26708,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 23503,
      "thoughts": 342,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 27095
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "df9d17bc-b2b9-4a9b-899f-bd721015403b",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:36.361Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 28604,
      "output": 46,
      "cached": 23550,
      "thoughts": 26,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 28676
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "2bb5ec60-dea6-4a12-9d5f-0252730c32d9",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:40.454Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 30859,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 0,
      "thoughts": 26,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 30932
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "7ab117a6-4fe7-4278-8945-6f9cc474b108",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:42.254Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 33104,
      "output": 43,
      "cached": 27590,
      "thoughts": 27,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 33174
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "d62c66e7-29c7-4ec4-aaf0-d4b225d9cd80",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:44.286Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 33752,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 31532,
      "thoughts": 53,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 33852
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "7183f901-f65e-41fe-996b-91b9db3113bf",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:46.098Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 35490,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 31568,
      "thoughts": 23,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 35560
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "8e285c80-8bcd-4cf2-ab77-5de255cf7ca1",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:48.167Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 36753,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 31586,
      "thoughts": 70,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 36868
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "becc4f08-3059-418c-8b20-3f583d8b0a31",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:51.556Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 37601,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 35539,
      "thoughts": 270,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 37916
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "869eb9f7-ead5-4042-b39d-795837568068",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:53.874Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 39595,
      "output": 81,
      "cached": 35581,
      "thoughts": 80,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 39756
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "443d899e-9953-464c-b58f-368f226979d4",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:12:59.921Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 40207,
      "output": 92,
      "cached": 35578,
      "thoughts": 35,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 40334
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "08878d10-1ab5-4604-a298-516ec84a3250",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:13:59.362Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 41366,
      "output": 102,
      "cached": 35591,
      "thoughts": 64,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 41532
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "93c9d788-6b63-4f9a-8217-bbc514adc3ab",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:14:07.305Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 41613,
      "output": 42,
      "cached": 39526,
      "thoughts": 133,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 41788
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "79160266-434e-4613-b3a5-ea4b402454b7",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:14:09.488Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 42528,
      "output": 44,
      "cached": 39533,
      "thoughts": 23,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 42595
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "7bef1775-6c92-4683-8a78-10709b4bae27",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:14:11.980Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 43430,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 39538,
      "thoughts": 46,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 43523
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "a4c3d1b4-c1a0-42f7-9de3-61d0e98101d1",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:14:38.124Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 45289,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 39573,
      "thoughts": 3929,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 49263
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "1f272eb2-b74a-477b-927d-1423ce95d70b",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:14:50.187Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 50213,
      "output": 33,
      "cached": 43653,
      "thoughts": 1564,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 51810
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "f7edc6ea-19a9-4e63-ba16-c3676064128a",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:15:03.701Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 52854,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 47673,
      "thoughts": 212,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 53113
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "b166e978-2608-4f93-bd6b-1ef810ce79bf",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:15:07.619Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 54332,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 51664,
      "thoughts": 33,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 54412
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "36be4cc5-72f7-4810-92c6-78bb08d2d18c",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:15:09.481Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 56268,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 51694,
      "thoughts": 27,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 56342
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "ea469e29-92ff-461f-8b37-78394484b77e",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:15:24.815Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 57120,
      "output": 165,
      "cached": 51694,
      "thoughts": 2031,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 59316
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "7bb6d185-3108-4bcc-b72c-b2ea9741e8ad",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:15:28.477Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 59371,
      "output": 247,
      "cached": 55708,
      "thoughts": 91,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 59709
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "8dfec748-d268-4ab2-9827-02b95df25717",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:15:42.950Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 59775,
      "output": 251,
      "cached": 55695,
      "thoughts": 18,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 60044
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "e97b3cee-47a3-42e2-a369-8e9343c5d664",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:15:48.185Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 60149,
      "output": 172,
      "cached": 55682,
      "thoughts": 85,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 60406
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "9faa9027-e11f-43da-8b6b-f9255aaa94a5",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:15:53.659Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 60692,
      "output": 177,
      "cached": 55673,
      "thoughts": 153,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 61022
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "090bc5e0-5cfe-4695-9b08-9d913fb9876f",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:15:58.322Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 61268,
      "output": 254,
      "cached": 55665,
      "thoughts": 66,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 61588
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "51d70ae7-a162-44b4-a6d7-0d207fbb7be2",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:16:42.530Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 61775,
      "output": 28,
      "cached": 59631,
      "thoughts": 6046,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 67849
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "b1b925cc-bc83-449f-a019-07a852da5029",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:16:48.935Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 68698,
      "output": 193,
      "cached": 59787,
      "thoughts": 147,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 69038
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "c974bffe-ee65-43f1-8eb1-683a1e038809",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:17:31.538Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 69218,
      "output": 230,
      "cached": 63762,
      "thoughts": 5976,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 75424
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "e3938739-2c39-4bef-b38e-45ac57b04d1f",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:17:37.233Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 75552,
      "output": 68,
      "cached": 67879,
      "thoughts": 20,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 75640
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "95c3c3ab-aa78-420e-8f6e-0749b0697a8e",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:17:40.915Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 75757,
      "output": 244,
      "cached": 71852,
      "thoughts": 28,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 76029
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "212eace9-91fc-4d82-acfb-6de9aabe5680",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:18:45.976Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 76139,
      "output": 90,
      "cached": 71838,
      "thoughts": 10156,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 86385
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "981ff26b-d48e-43b8-a660-76d1aecbd263",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:24:28.764Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 88246,
      "output": 106,
      "cached": 8007,
      "thoughts": 3750,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 92102
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "f61a6cc2-1acc-44b4-a54a-23d293a02eaf",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:29:56.146Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 94007,
      "output": 51,
      "cached": 0,
      "thoughts": 30,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 94088
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "93493f74-b697-44e6-8ed2-99c6ce96a769",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:30:02.202Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 94178,
      "output": 126,
      "cached": 92171,
      "thoughts": 75,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 94379
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "fef816a6-cf30-4066-afa5-504ff754fbfd",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:30:22.738Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 94570,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 92154,
      "thoughts": 2543,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 97158
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "0329f26e-f960-4b94-9791-130d60411ed2",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:31:00.212Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 98147,
      "output": 195,
      "cached": 92204,
      "thoughts": 5325,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 103667
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "8b23bc43-7475-453a-9c1e-f4e11cb1ef7a",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:31:19.010Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 103841,
      "output": 43,
      "cached": 96298,
      "thoughts": 3040,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 106924
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "1ea961be-98ac-4acb-84fd-4e2b92873a8e",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:31:21.874Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 107472,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 100355,
      "thoughts": 149,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 107666
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "acd50465-26dd-422f-8878-cb766d0fa44f",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:31:27.860Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 108287,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 104361,
      "thoughts": 618,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 108952
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "6056b538-c1b0-4df4-baa2-30c6f30b0971",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:31:33.038Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 109495,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 104360,
      "thoughts": 391,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 109933
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "53336684-d123-4c5e-ab4f-11f53e07cfc9",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:31:44.830Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 110723,
      "output": 544,
      "cached": 108373,
      "thoughts": 1163,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 112430
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "ca40791c-7429-4880-968a-41907617200a",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:31:50.264Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 112436,
      "output": 37,
      "cached": 108372,
      "thoughts": 107,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 112580
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "3cacbb01-e6c3-4ea2-9523-cb241ce3067e",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:31:53.994Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 112884,
      "output": 80,
      "cached": 108356,
      "thoughts": 122,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 113086
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "4139c098-d467-48d8-b66b-27801b136cce",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:31:58.703Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 113115,
      "output": 544,
      "cached": 108336,
      "thoughts": 18,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 113677
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "7ede99bf-78f6-4094-9c86-74c3f1d6edd8",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:13.796Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 113882,
      "output": 710,
      "cached": 108317,
      "thoughts": 766,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 115358
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "56596ab3-fe38-44a7-904e-f55e5f9ad00f",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:18.333Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 115728,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 112332,
      "thoughts": 64,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 115837
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "00c17bec-fe96-4adf-b5fb-18f0e9f8fc4d",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:23.157Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 116428,
      "output": 572,
      "cached": 112321,
      "thoughts": 27,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 117027
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "6a5de5ff-16ee-43cb-bc7c-954d7c6a2a8f",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:26.080Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 117237,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 112303,
      "thoughts": 55,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 117339
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "f16b20b6-aaca-43f0-9814-3858c5b271e3",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:30.302Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 117907,
      "output": 434,
      "cached": 112292,
      "thoughts": 16,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 118357
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "d37f851a-3d87-4e5d-8324-ab4a406a0082",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:32.952Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 118743,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 116285,
      "thoughts": 54,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 118844
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "5a1f5acd-b3fc-43d0-962e-cf4464202d20",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:36.650Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 120393,
      "output": 47,
      "cached": 116294,
      "thoughts": 22,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 120462
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "687f7951-b8ca-49c5-ab86-0b65af3a9c66",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:47.528Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 120963,
      "output": 1805,
      "cached": 116281,
      "thoughts": 64,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 122832
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "ae441d94-9177-4cf4-8a1f-e35841e03340",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:52.837Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 123820,
      "output": 58,
      "cached": 120315,
      "thoughts": 51,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 123929
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "cb3e1342-b57a-4bde-b9c4-a6b9cd72c603",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:32:57.820Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 123958,
      "output": 159,
      "cached": 120293,
      "thoughts": 172,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 124289
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "d62425b2-472d-4ac3-995c-5fdb14d6d55b",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:37:51.014Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 126219,
      "output": 57,
      "cached": 0,
      "thoughts": 56,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 126332
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "5e8d9f3b-653e-4663-9128-bf45ed3ff7ef",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:38:00.571Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 126425,
      "output": 128,
      "cached": 124304,
      "thoughts": 271,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 126824
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "7e2a2939-4fd5-49ce-bc1f-15c9b663d312",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:38:08.008Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 127005,
      "output": 159,
      "cached": 124291,
      "thoughts": 151,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 127315
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "69efc7ee-4ab3-49b6-bee3-7a491223f7aa",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:43:01.668Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 129245,
      "output": 53,
      "cached": 0,
      "thoughts": 20,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 129318
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "ba8a7bcb-ebf0-4cb1-a7ec-c1f4356d4948",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:43:11.271Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 129412,
      "output": 130,
      "cached": 124291,
      "thoughts": 60,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 129602
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "4a5070b2-1a95-4200-9ce8-621e20e2d27d",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:43:31.459Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 129782,
      "output": 58,
      "cached": 124274,
      "thoughts": 2962,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 132802
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "83d34492-956c-41c7-84bd-fdbc2061aec0",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:44:06.406Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 135077,
      "output": 61,
      "cached": 128366,
      "thoughts": 5250,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 140388
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "cb8b03c9-4d9f-4a0f-95c3-a43c2df06853",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:44:09.485Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 140717,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 132463,
      "thoughts": 91,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 140853
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "8a58161f-d8e8-4313-823b-d15df6b2d161",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:44:13.952Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 141289,
      "output": 492,
      "cached": 136464,
      "thoughts": 20,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 141801
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "07b37b72-61c6-410e-836c-72c114ed6158",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:44:23.571Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 142178,
      "output": 45,
      "cached": 136447,
      "thoughts": 50,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 142273
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "a3c94b71-2c7f-49c5-bad3-aee6f8450116",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:44:28.225Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 142733,
      "output": 493,
      "cached": 140446,
      "thoughts": 19,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 143245
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "23c5d756-122c-4418-810f-1e6dc699a9be",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:44:30.715Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 143603,
      "output": 58,
      "cached": 140429,
      "thoughts": 25,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 143686
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "12bce607-bc57-4c3a-95af-761e0a6d88a4",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:44:37.612Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 143715,
      "output": 170,
      "cached": 140406,
      "thoughts": 577,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 144462
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "d57e3fba-0808-4840-aff9-67c4e3003fd4",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:50:05.782Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 146382,
      "output": 48,
      "cached": 0,
      "thoughts": 14,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 146444
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "d49fbe9a-6ef2-4e11-b384-1feb10480134",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:50:16.597Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 146533,
      "output": 138,
      "cached": 144425,
      "thoughts": 501,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 147172
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "de655d7d-ae78-4d06-9e7d-f569ca55e730",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:55:25.544Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 149097,
      "output": 49,
      "cached": 0,
      "thoughts": 15,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 149161
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "ded50113-f079-4302-8ecb-45938d6de1c4",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T02:55:35.927Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 149251,
      "output": 159,
      "cached": 144430,
      "thoughts": 554,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 149964
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "8877c3fc-144f-443f-8bff-9f188ed63890",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T03:01:54.992Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 151895,
      "output": 53,
      "cached": 8025,
      "thoughts": 19,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 151967
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "4bf9c485-3867-4281-b423-8975a7484599",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T03:02:09.342Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 152061,
      "output": 43,
      "cached": 148448,
      "thoughts": 1365,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 153469
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "cec96189-4908-4883-a5a3-31a636456be8",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T03:02:19.984Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 153982,
      "output": 601,
      "cached": 148461,
      "thoughts": 114,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 154697
    }
  },
  {
    "messageId": "1bacec03-76fe-4a6d-9024-b324fcf8efd7",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-29T03:02:31.703Z",
    "model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
    "tokens": {
      "input": 155019,
      "output": 202,
      "cached": 152460,
      "thoughts": 220,
      "tool": 0,
      "total": 155441
    }
  }
]
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-r05-b9049e57
Recorded model
gemini-3.8-flash
Harness version
0.61.0
Session
0aad8420-cbfb-4325-b1b4-2d368ce6c0fc
Source SHA-256
9de057512c2c3e0d6a1764b856163e224d6cc7d9fc1e369ade776b397d9e5e3f

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.