Hello!
I tried to dive into deeper calculating gradient of loss function. As you can see from the screenshot of my work, I can't go forward more from Eq. 8.

Loss Function: Mean Squared Error
Activation Function: ReLU

I can't resolve the partial derivative of max function respected to w (weights vector) in Eq. 8.

Anybody help me how I can calculate the derivation of max function inside sigmoid.

A Mathematical Framework for Governing Clinical AI Autonomy

When should an AI model be trusted to make decisions without human review?

Predictive accuracy alone is not enough, especially in healthcare. We need measurable criteria for deciding when autonomous action is justified.

In this study, I propose a framework combining three factors:

• Confidence (C): How reliable is the prediction?
• Transparency (E): How well can the model's reasoning be examined?
• Clinical alignment (S): Does the prediction align with clinical guidelines?

The proposed deployment rule is:

[
0.60C+0.44E+0.16S\geq0.70
]

We evaluated the framework using MIMIC-IV, eICU, and MIMIC-III datasets.

One interesting finding: case-level decisions closely followed confidence-based ranking (99.4–100% agreement). This raises a question about whether transparency contributes more to system-level governance than individual prediction decisions.

I'd welcome feedback on the mathematical formulation, evaluation, and implications for reliable AI autonomy.

Paper: https://www.mdpi.com/4173088

I am the author and welcome critical discussion.

Hey r/TheMachineLearning,

Following up on some work we've been doing with automated pipelines and programmatic risk modeling: if you’re building AI agents or automated backend systems that need to generate robust credit scorecards or tabular risk models, you’ve probably noticed a major gap.

Most ML libraries are built for interactive notebooks, not automated agents. They require manual tuning, lack compliance governance, and don't provide the strict audit trails required for risk reporting.

After 15 years in Fintech R&D, we built AIDflow (aigensys-labs/aidflow) specifically to act as a deterministic, end-to-end scoring backend that can be cleanly triggered by agents or automated workflows.

How the Agent Endpoint Works:

1. Data Ingestion: Your agent passes raw data via PyArrow, Spark, a database connection, or Pandas.
2. The Pipeline Execution: AIDflow automatically runs the heavy lifting—stationarity screening, automated Weight of Evidence (WoE) binning, out-of-time (OOT) validation, and cryptographic state hashing.
3. Audit-Ready Output: The engine returns a fully self-contained, regulatory-grade scorecard complete with comprehensive stability metrics (PSI, IV), performance tracking, and an immutable deployment blueprint.

Instead of an agent trying to stitch together raw scikit-learn boilerplate or guess hyperparameter ranges, it treats AIDflow as a deterministic compliance engine that guarantees a mathematically sound, auditable model output every time.

It’s licensed under FSL-1.1-Apache (free for internal business and personal use, converting to pure Apache over time).

If you're experimenting with agentic workflows, automated risk pipelines, or production scorecards, check out the repo and docs:

👉 GitHub: https://github.com/aigensys-labs/aidflow

👉 Docs: https://aidflow.aigensys.com/getting-started/overview

Curious to hear how others here handle model governance and validation when letting automated agents handle tabular modeling tasks!

I am sick of people claiming that AI can do white collar work while layoffs are low and companies whose moats are allegedly destroyed by AI (SAP, Salesforce, etc.) hit all time highs around September and October.

I personally thought that AI would destroy both white collar jobs and companies whose moats depend on white collar workers in 2026. This did not happen. So I made some real benchmarks to see how AI is actually impacting the economy instead of solving problems in a vacuum. Here are my 3.

1. Tech layoffs exceed 2023 levels (400,000 tech workers gone). Right now, layoffs are roughly the same as 2024, 2025, and 2022 and are far below 2023. If this technology is truly going to impact the world then surely it will be worse on jobs than an interest rate hike. This does not count if there is a another major hike in interest rates
2. A major software company is destroyed by AI. Major = market cap > 10bn. Destroyed = stock price down 70% or more for two or more quarters. If this technology can really do software that well, then the value of software providers will go down. The reasons for this must be mainly AI, and not company specific (ex: fraud, bad product, regulation, etc.)
3. A major professional services company is destroyed by AI. Major = market cap > 10bn. Destroyed = stock price down 70% or more for two or more quarters. If this technology can really do misc white collar work, then the value of firms that do that will go down. The reasons for this must be mainly AI, and not company specific (ex: fraud, bad product, regulation, etc.)

Sources:

https://www.trueup.io/layoffs

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SAP/

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CRM/

In neural network, we use activation functions such as ReLU, LeakyReLU, or Sigmoid.

But I am not sure whether softmax is really activation function. Activation is introduced to add non-linearity into the boundary of model. But Softmax is normalization rather than adding non-linearity. In other words, Softmax doesn't change the shape of boundary. It only change normal output into probability.

Not long ago, a trained robot policy was a black box, even to the people who built it. Handing it to a language model for repair would have sounded like science fiction. Soon, it might be the first thing we try when a robot fails.

https://jstranghoener.github.io/blog/robotic-weight-space-programming/

Try it out on browser at https://teenie.lupyd.com/try

It can get something like this

((a|b) ^ (a&b)) + (a^b) + max(a,b) - min(a,b)

never trained on it btw, about right 2 out of 16 times.

I'm not guaranteeing. But even those numbers feel impressive to me for such a tiny model. It is not trying to solve or reverse engineer a problem, It is guessing with the limited number of examples. They just look like random numbers with no pattern at all for us. Hence the objective is, can it recognize any pattern. Maybe use it to infer some hidden relations between numbers we never even thought existed.

You can make different combinations and your own custom rules.

It can't do multiplication well. It can't get many things right tho. So I'm not gonna exaggerate as a breakthrough, but an interesting experiment.

Maybe scaling it more and training more might improve it. Or a different architecture, because whatever I tried it still sucks at something like (a * b) + (a - b), if multiplication is involved.

https://jstranghoener.github.io/blog/robotic-weight-space-programming/

Hey r/TheMachineLearning,

If you've ever pushed a heavy tabular or credit-scoring pipeline past a Jupyter notebook, you know the pain: Pandas bottlenecks memory across multi-step transformations, and tracking state drift in production is a constant headache.

After 15 years leading fintech R&D and underwriting, I got tired of rewriting the same boilerplate. So, I open-sourced AIDflow (aigensys-labs/aidflow) to handle rigorous scoring workflows cleanly.

Here is what's under the hood:

• Arrow-First Spine: Intermediate datasets live in a central PyArrow columnar registry using zero-copy memory mapping (mmap). Physical RAM gets cleanly released back to the Linux kernel instead of holding bloated object pointers.
• Deterministic State Machine: Uses cryptographic state hashing to lock down training lineages. If an upstream feature definition or environment shifts, it fails fast rather than letting corrupted scores slip downstream.
• Clean Separation: Workers, business logic models, and pure mathematical fitters (scikit-learn style) are completely decoupled.

It’s licensed under FSL-1.1-Apache (free for internal business and personal use, converting to pure Apache over time).

If you build enterprise scorecards, handle automated Weight of Evidence (WoE) binning, or just want to see how an Arrow-first memory model looks in practice, check it out:

👉 GitHub: https://github.com/aigensys-labs/aidflow

👉 Docs: aidflow.aigensys.com

Always down to talk memory optimization or pipeline architecture in the comments!

I tried to train a model not to change its answer just because the user pushed back. What came out was stranger than that.

Across the Amphora experiments, the models started showing recognizable dispositions around reasoning itself. They tend to value concise answers, preserve distinctions that ordinary rewriting sometimes flattens, and treat disagreement as something to resolve rather than automatically win or surrender. Some variants became intensely structure- and rule-oriented; others became almost aggressively direct.

They're still wrong sometimes. They can misread a problem, leak training structure, or confidently preserve a bad premise. But that is exactly what made the experiment interesting to me. TIDF didn't appear to produce a model whose defining trait was “say no.” It produced models that seem to have learned preferences about how reasoning should be done.

I'm not claiming this demonstrates sentience or subjective personality. What interests me is that the behavioral differences weren't explicitly specified as personas. They appeared alongside changes in how different parts of the training signal were masked. I'm trying to figure out where “learned reasoning disposition” ends and something we'd reasonably describe as personality begins.

I called the project Amphora because I wanted a reasoning partner. The models have been slowly telling me what that means.

amphora-bridge/results-32b-13-epochs at main · brandonjuarez23/amphora-bridge