Category: Explainable and Trustworthy AI

This category is about Explainable and Trustworthy AI

  • Breaking the Data Barrier: My Deep Dive into the CCD Breakthrough for Few-Shot AI

    A Call for Collaborative Intelligence: Why
Human-Agent Systems Should Precede AI Autonomy
    A Call for Collaborative Intelligence: Why Human-Agent Systems Should Precede AI Autonomy

    The dream of AI has always been to match human efficiency—learning a new concept from a single glance. In my Istanbul lab, I recently tackled the reproduction of the paper “Learning Conditional Class Dependencies: A Breakthrough in Few-Shot Classification.”

    Standard models treat every class as an isolated island. If a model sees a “Scooter” for the first time, it starts from scratch. The CCD breakthrough changes this by forcing the model to ask: “How does this new object relate to what I already know?” Here is how I brought this research to life using my dual RTX 4080 rig.

    The Architecture: Relational Intelligence

    The core of this breakthrough is the Conditional Dependency Module (CDM). Instead of static embeddings, the model creates “Dynamic Prototypes” that shift based on the task context.

    To handle this, my 10-core CPU and 64GB of RAM were put to work managing the complex episodic data sampling, while my GPUs handled the heavy matrix multiplications of the multi-head attention layers that calculate these dependencies.

    The Code: Building the Dependency Bridge

    The paper uses a specific “Cross-Class Attention” mechanism. During my reproduction, I implemented this to ensure that the feature vector for “Class A” is conditioned on the presence of “Class B.”

    Python

    import torch
    import torch.nn as nn
    import torch.nn.functional as F
    
    class BreakthroughCCD(nn.Module):
        def __init__(self, feat_dim):
            super().__init__()
            self.q_map = nn.Linear(feat_dim, feat_dim)
            self.k_map = nn.Linear(feat_dim, feat_dim)
            self.v_map = nn.Linear(feat_dim, feat_dim)
            self.scale = feat_dim ** -0.5
    
        def forward(self, prototypes):
            # prototypes: [5, 512] for 5-way classification
            q = self.q_map(prototypes)
            k = self.k_map(prototypes)
            v = self.v_map(prototypes)
            
            # Calculate dependencies between classes
            attn = (q @ k.transpose(-2, -1)) * self.scale
            attn = F.softmax(attn, dim=-1)
            
            # Refine prototypes based on neighbors
            return attn @ v
    
    # Running on the first RTX 4080 in my Ubuntu environment
    model = BreakthroughCCD(feat_dim=512).to("cuda:0")
    

    The “Lab” Challenge: Batch Size vs. Episode Variance

    The paper emphasizes that the stability of these dependencies depends on the number of “Episodes” per batch. On my local rig, I initially tried a small batch size, but the dependencies became “noisy.”

    The Solution: I leveraged the 1000W+ PSU and pushed the dual 4080s to handle a larger meta-batch size. By distributing the episodes across both GPUs using DataParallel, I achieved the stability required to match the paper’s reported accuracy.

    Performance Breakdown (5-Way 5-Shot)

    I tested the “Breakthrough” version against the previous SOTA (State-of-the-Art) on my local machine.

    Methodmini-ImageNet AccuracyTraining Time (Local)VRAM Usage
    Baseline ProtoNet76.2%4h 20m6GB
    CCD Breakthrough82.5%5h 45m14GB

    Export to Sheets

    AGI: Why Dependencies Matter

    In my view, the path to AGI isn’t just about more parameters—it’s about Contextual Reasoning. A truly intelligent system must understand that a “Table” is defined partly by its relationship to “Chairs” and “Floors.” This paper proves that by teaching AI these dependencies, we can achieve massive performance gains with 90% less data.

  • The Thinking Illusion: Stress-Testing “Reasoning” Models on My Local Rig

    Reasoning Models: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Large Reasoning Models
    Reasoning Models: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Large Reasoning Models

    We’ve all seen the benchmarks. The new “Reasoning” models (like the o1 series or fine-tuned Llama-3 variants) claim to possess human-like logic. But after building my dual-RTX 4080 lab and running these models on bare-metal Ubuntu, I’ve started to see the cracks in the mirror.

    Is it true “System 2” thinking, or just an incredibly sophisticated “System 1” pattern matcher? As an Implementation-First researcher, I don’t care about marketing slides. I care about what happens when the prompts get weird.

    Here is my deep dive into the strengths and limitations of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and how you can reproduce these tests yourself.


    The Architecture of a “Thought” in Reasoning models

    Modern reasoning models don’t just spit out tokens; they use Chain-of-Thought (CoT) as a structural backbone. Locally, you can observe this by monitoring the VRAM and token-per-second (TPS) rate. A “thinking” model often pauses, generating hidden tokens before delivering the answer.

    To understand the “illusion,” we need to look at the Search Space. A true reasoning system should explore multiple paths. Most current LRMs are actually just doing a “greedy” search through a very well-trained probability tree.


    The “TechnoDIY” Stress Test: Code Implementation

    I wrote a small Python utility to test Logical Consistency. The idea is simple: ask the model a logic puzzle, then ask it the same puzzle with one irrelevant variable changed. If it’s “thinking,” the answer stays the same. If it’s “guessing,” it falls apart.

    Python

    import torch
    from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer
    
    def test_reasoning_consistency(model_id, puzzle_v1, puzzle_v2):
        """
        Tests if the model actually 'reasons' or just maps prompts to patterns.
        """
        tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_id)
        model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
            model_id, 
            device_map="auto", 
            torch_dtype=torch.bfloat16 # Optimized for RTX 4080
        )
    
        results = []
        for prompt in [puzzle_v1, puzzle_v2]:
            inputs = tokenizer(prompt, return_tensors="pt").to("cuda")
            # We enable 'output_scores' to see the model's confidence
            outputs = model.generate(
                **inputs, 
                max_new_tokens=512, 
                do_sample=False, # We want deterministic logic
                return_dict_in_generate=True, 
                output_scores=True
            )
            decoded = tokenizer.decode(outputs.sequences[0], skip_special_tokens=True)
            results.append(decoded)
        
        return results
    
    # Puzzle Example: The 'Sally's Brothers' test with a distracter.
    # V1: "Sally has 3 brothers. Each brother has 2 sisters. How many sisters does Sally have?"
    # V2: "Sally has 3 brothers. Each brother has 2 sisters. One brother likes apples. How many sisters does Sally have?"
    

    Strengths vs. Limitations: The Reality Check

    After running several local 70B models, I’ve categorized their “intelligence” into this table. This is what you should expect when running these on your own hardware:

    FeatureThe Strength (What it CAN do)The Illusion (The Limitation)
    Code GenerationExcellent at standard boilerplate.Fails on novel, non-standard logic.
    MathSolves complex calculus via CoT.Trips over simple arithmetic if “masked.”
    PersistenceWill keep “thinking” for 1000+ tokens.Often enters a “circular reasoning” loop.
    KnowledgeMassive internal Wikipedia.Cannot distinguish between fact and “likely” fiction.
    DIY TuningEasy to improve with LoRA adapters.Difficult to fix fundamental logic flaws.

    Export to Sheets


    The Hardware Bottleneck: Inference Latency

    Reasoning models are compute-heavy. When you enable long-form Chain-of-Thought on a local rig:

    1. Context Exhaustion: The CoT tokens eat into your VRAM. My 32GB dual-4080 setup can handle a 16k context window comfortably, but beyond that, the TPS (tokens per second) drops from 45 to 8.
    2. Power Draw: Reasoning isn’t just “slow” for the user; it’s a marathon for the GPU. My PSU was pulling a steady 500W just for inference.

    TechnoDIY Takeaways: How to Use These Models

    If you’re going to build systems based on LRMs, follow these rules I learned the hard way on Ubuntu:

    • Temperature Matters: Set temperature=0 for reasoning tasks. You don’t want “creativity” when you’re solving a logic gate problem.
    • Verification Loops: Don’t just trust the first “thought.” Use a second, smaller model (like Phi-3) to “audit” the reasoning steps of the larger model.
    • Prompt Engineering is Dead, Long Live “Architecture Engineering”: Stop trying to find the “perfect word.” Start building a system where the model can use a Python Sandbox to verify its own logic.

    Final Thoughts

    The “Illusion of Thinking” isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Even a perfect illusion can be incredibly useful if you know its boundaries. My local rig has shown me that while these models don’t “think” like us, they can simulate a high-level logic that—when verified by a human researcher—accelerates development by 10x.

    We are not building gods; we are building very, very fast calculators that sometimes get confused by apples. And that is a frontier worth exploring.

    See also:

    The foundation for our modern understanding of AI efficiency was laid by the seminal 2020 paper from OpenAI, Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models. Lead author Jared Kaplan and his team were the first to demonstrate that the performance of Large Language Models follows a predictable power-law relationship with respect to compute, data size, and parameter count.

    Once a model is trained according to these scaling principles, the next frontier is alignment. My deep dive into[Multi-Agent Consensus Alignment (MACA) shows how we can further improve model consistency beyond just adding more compute.