Roman retweeted
mRNA will be crucial to beating cancer and solving disease but only if we can deliver it to the right cells.
Nanograb's AI-designed multivalent nanoparticles address a cell's unique receptor fingerprint, now proven in vivo across multiple cell types and scaling to many more.
Roman retweeted
We're publicly 🤗 sharing "Counsel": a first-of-its-kind meta-evaluation dataset for LLM judge error analysis of agents.
Agents need more than scalar rewards. To hill-climb on models and harnesses, we need richer signals on why an agent failed, where it became misaligned,... xitter.cf/HennersBro98/status/20…
1/ We’re releasing Counsel: a meta-evaluation dataset for LLM-as-a-judge critiques on agentic tasks.
As agents run over longer horizons, final scores are not enough. We need to know whether judges find the right failure point, and whether their critique is useful.
3/ A few findings:
The strongest judge in our study reached ~88% agreement with humans on error location, but only ~65% on critique reasoning.
More reasoning effort improved critique quality across both environments.
4/ One surprising result: we did not find significant self-preference bias in same-family judge/agent pairings.
Counsel is permissively licensed and built from open-weight models.
Dataset: huggingface.co/datasets/Atla…
Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2606.21627
Roman retweeted
Playing the long game gives you such an advantage over competitors. Hardly anyone else is doing it. They haven't chosen not to. They just haven't explicitly thought about the question, and the default is not to.
Roman retweeted
There was a nice time where researchers talked about various ideas quite openly on twitter. (before they disappeared into the gold mines :)).
My guess is that you can get quite far even in the current paradigm by introducing a number of memory ops as "tools" and throwing them into the mix in RL. E.g. current compaction and memory implementations are crappy, first, early examples that were somewhat bolted on, but both can be fairly easily generalized and made part of the optimization as just another tool during RL.
That said neither of these is fully satisfying because clearly people are capable of some weight-based updates (my personal suspicion - mostly during sleep). So there should be even more room for more exotic approaches for long-term memory that do change the weights, but exactly - the details are not obvious. This is a lot more exciting, but also more into the realm of research outside of the established prod stack.
I've been thinking a bit about continual learning recently, especially as it relates to long-running agents (and running a few toy experiments with MLX).
The status quo of prompt compaction coupled with recursive sub-agents is actually remarkably effective. Seems like we can go pretty far with this. (Prompt compaction = when the context window gets close to full, model generates a shorter summary, then start from scratch using the summary. Recursive sub-agents = decompose tasks into smaller tasks to deal with finite context windows)
Recursive sub-agents will probably always be useful. But prompt compaction seems like a bit of an inefficient (though highly effective) hack.
The are two other alternatives I know of 1. online fine-tuning and 2. memory based techniques.
Online fine-tuning: train some LoRA adapters on data the model encounters during deployment. I'm less bullish on this in general. Aside from the engineering challenges of deploying custom models / adapters for each use case / user there are a some fundamental issues:
- Online fine-tuning is inherently unstable. If you train on data in the target domain you can catastrophically destroy capabilities that you don't target. One way around this is to keep a mixed dataset with the new and the old. But this gets pretty complicated pretty quickly.
- What does the data even look like for online fine tuning? Do you generate Q/A pairs based on the target domain to train the model? You also have the problem prioritizing information in the data mixture given finite capacity.
Memory based techniques: basically a policy for keeping useful memory around and discarding what is not needed. This feels much more like how humans retain information: "use it or lose it". You only need a few things for this to work:
- An eviction/retention policy. Something like "keep a memory if it has been accessed at least once in the last 10k tokens".
- The policy needs to be efficiently computable
- A place for the model to store and access long-term memory. Maybe a sparsely accessed KV cache would be sufficient. But for efficient access to a large memory a hierarchical data structure might be beter.
Roman retweeted
Paging all the Swiss founders! 🫕
For the final leg of our European tour, YC will be at ETH Zurich
We've been seeing incredible AI and robotics talent coming out of Zurich recently, and I'm incredibly excited to meet the next generation of founders.
Get your ticket here: events.ycombinator.com/yc-et…
Roman retweeted
We're fans of error analysis at @Atla_AI, so we took @sh_reya and @HamelHusain's advice seriously and tried to properly automate it end-to-end. We've written up our findings of what works (and what doesn't) in a new blogpost! atla-ai.com/post/automating-…
Roman retweeted
Neat findings on trying to build hybrid human-AI collaborative error analysis workflows.
On the human side, small changes to labeling instructions can increase agreement by up to 10x. On the AI side, splitting long, complex analyses into smaller, simpler subtasks significantly improves performance.
I suspect that these findings will hold true for other human-AI collaborative data analysis workflows, and I hope people do more of this research!!
We're fans of error analysis at @Atla_AI, so we took @sh_reya and @HamelHusain's advice seriously and tried to properly automate it end-to-end. We've written up our findings of what works (and what doesn't) in a new blogpost! atla-ai.com/post/automating-…
When evals no longer reflect how your product is used, they become unreliable and you start optimising for the wrong things. Static datasets and fixed LLM-judge metrics stay frozen while usage evolves, leading to stale signals and false confidence.
Fresh from our research team — we show how to learn from real production data, evolve failure patterns, and automate the loop so evaluation becomes a continuous, reliable engine for improving your agents.
atla-ai.com/post/automating-…
we actually use @fieldyai in our office and I can't stress how useful it has been to have a single source of information to query after 4 hours of meetings...
This Post is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
Roman retweeted
Replying to @DhravyaShah
had same discussion today with @RomanEngeler, atla might be helpful here :)
🚀 Atla now supports BAML (by @boundaryML)
The ‘best developer experience for building agents’ just got better. You can now use Atla to automatically surface performance insights and actionable improvements on agents built with BAML.
About BAML: BAML is a domain‑specific language for prompt engineering. Define prompts as typed functions and produce type-safe, structured outputs
Why this matters: BAML gives you a systematic, git-versioned approach to prompt engineering—but you need insights to know what to improve. Atla closes that loop by surfacing exactly where your BAML agents are failing, so you can iterate with confidence and measure progress over time.
With this integration, you get:
✅ Seamless setup - a few lines of code to instrument the framework and LLM provider
✅ Span-level error detection across your BAML traces
✅ Automatic clustering of errors to surface recurrent, systematic failures
✅ Actionable improvement suggestions to optimize your prompts and agent logic
Try it out for free or book a demo to learn how teams are shipping faster using Atla: atla-ai.com/
AI agents still make a lot of mistakes, but recover from most.
Working with the best teams shows the key: focus on the few errors that actually cause task failure—and iterate fast.
Our human-in-the-loop results confirm it: atla-ai.com/post/gaia
o1 flipped the switch. Reasoning models became the default overnight.
Now we’re at o4, Claude-4 with reasoning budgets, Gemini 2.5, Grok 3 — all sprinting towards the same goal.
We’re racing towards autonomous, thinking, collaborating AI systems
We analyzed τ-bench to understand why agents fail and how to fix that.
Our analysis of the retail customer service agents shows agents frequently take incorrect actions. More importantly, we noticed that once they start failing, they rarely recover on their own, especially for failure modes like giving the “wrong information” or taking the “wrong action.”
That’s why we went one step further with our EvalToolbox. It uses evaluations to not only check of errors but also to provide feedback that allows agents to self-correct:
Read the blog post: atla-ai.com/post/t-bench?utm…
Sign up: atla-ai.com/sign-up?utm_sour…
Or, get in touch to learn how to use the EvalToolbox for your agents: calendly.com/sindhuja-atla-a…














