AI Engineer World's Fair 2025
Effective AI Agents Need Data Flywheels, Not The Next Biggest LLM – Sylendran Arunagiri, NVIDIA
Read the talk
Keeping AI Agents Useful with Data Flywheels
NVIDIA’s employee-support router shows how production feedback, expert review and task-specific fine-tuning can make smaller models viable replacements for larger ones.
From a talk by Sylendran Arunagiri
Before you start: Familiarity with LLM inference, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation will help; no NVIDIA platform experience is required.
Agents need a learning loop
How do you keep an AI agent relevant and helpful after deployment? Its model must continue serving a task while the knowledge, users and expectations around that task change. Sylendran Arunagiri, from NVIDIA’s Generative AI Platforms team, approaches this problem through data flywheels: repeated cycles of learning from operational data, illustrated through NVIDIA’s internal employee-support agent.
Customer-service agents, software-security agents and research agents have different jobs, but share a basic cycle: perceive, reason and act. They inspect data, form a plan and use tools, functions or external systems to carry it out. Feedback completes that cycle. Capturing whether the result helped the user gives the system evidence it can use to refine its behavior as preferences and needs evolve.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Changing data and rising costs
Enterprise knowledge changes rapidly as new business intelligence enters the system. Customer needs and user preferences change alongside it. Meanwhile, serving larger models becomes more expensive as usage grows. An agent that works at launch therefore faces both a relevance problem and an operating-cost problem.
A data flywheel starts with enterprise data and repeatedly processes and curates it, customizes models, evaluates their behavior and applies guardrails for safer interactions. Retrieval-augmented generation, or RAG, supplies relevant enterprise knowledge when answering a query. Production inference data, business intelligence and user feedback then feed the next round of ground-truth curation.
The objective is to find smaller models that meet the task’s accuracy requirement while improving latency, inference speed and total cost of ownership. That requires evaluating both existing models and newly available candidates against the work the agent actually performs. Model size is a candidate-selection variable; task accuracy is the acceptance criterion.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Map services to the loop
NeMo Microservices provides components for the different stages of this process. The division of responsibilities matters because improving an agent involves more than training its model.
| Service | Responsibility in the flywheel |
|---|---|
| NeMo Curator | Prepare high-quality training data, including multimodal data |
| NeMo Customizer | Customize models with LoRA, P-tuning and full supervised fine-tuning |
| NeMo Evaluator | Run academic or institutional benchmarks and LLM-as-a-judge evaluations |
| NeMo Guardrails | Constrain interactions for privacy, security and safety |
| NeMo Retriever | Build retrieval-augmented generation pipelines |
These are the capabilities presented in the recording; the customization techniques describe that historical offering, not a guarantee of identical support in every current release.
The services expose API endpoints, allowing customization, evaluation and guardrailing to be coordinated through API calls. Arunagiri describes deployment across on-premises infrastructure, cloud, data centers and edge environments, with NVIDIA enterprise support. That platform-level flexibility should not be read as a claim that every component or model fits arbitrary edge hardware.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
From production interaction to model promotion
Consider a customer-service agent assembled from these components. A user interacts with its frontend; guardrails protect the interaction; a backend model served through NVIDIA NIM provides optimized inference. Alongside that serving path, a separate improvement loop gathers the data needed to decide which model should power the agent.
The improvement loop follows a concrete sequence:
- Curate operational data and store it in NeMo Data Store.
- Use Customizer and Evaluator to repeat training and evaluation across candidate models.
- Check whether a candidate meets the target accuracy.
- Have an IT administrator or AI engineer promote the accepted model to serve the agent through NIM.
The promotion gate connects experimentation to deployment. Training a candidate does not itself replace the production model.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
NVinfo’s routing problem
NVIDIA’s internal NVinfo agent gives employees access to enterprise knowledge across HR benefits, financial earnings, IT help and product documentation. Its architecture separates those domains into expert agents rather than asking one undifferentiated agent to handle every query.
An employee query passes through safety and security guardrails before reaching an LLM-powered router. Domain experts have RAG pipelines that retrieve the information needed to answer questions in their respective areas. Production inference logs and user feedback feed a flywheel, while subject-matter experts and human review help curate ground truth. Customizer and Evaluator compare models that could be promoted as the router’s NIM.
The red boxes in the architecture identify places where the multi-model system can fail. Routing is one such point: the router must infer the query’s intent and context, select an expert, and hand the query to that expert’s retrieval pipeline. The optimization question is narrow and measurable: which expert should receive this query, and can a faster, cheaper model make that decision accurately?
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
The baseline gap is a starting point
The untuned Llama 3.1 70B and Llama 3.3 70B variants reportedly achieved 96% routing accuracy, while Llama 3.1 8B achieved below 14%. These measurements concern selecting the correct expert agent, not the quality of the final answer. The accompanying slide also cautions that the prompt optimized for the 70B model may not suit the 8B model.
Such a large baseline gap can make the smaller model look unviable before any customization begins. But this comparison only establishes how the pretrained models perform under the existing setup. It does not establish how well a smaller model can learn the specific routing task from curated examples.
The team ran the 70B model and circulated a feedback form asking NVIDIA employees to submit queries and report whether the responses were useful. They collected 1,224 responses: 729 satisfactory and 495 unsatisfactory. Response satisfaction and routing accuracy are different measurements: an unhappy user identifies a problem worth investigating, but does not identify which component caused it.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Attribute failures before creating training data
NeMo Evaluator used an LLM judge to investigate the 495 unsatisfactory responses and flagged 140 as incorrect routing. Subject-matter experts and manual analysis confirmed 32 genuine routing failures. This second review separates a proposed failure attribution from a training label the team is prepared to trust. Treating every unsatisfactory answer—or every judge verdict—as a router error would train against the wrong target.
Arunagiri reports a ground-truth dataset of 685 examples, split 60% for training or fine-tuning and 40% for testing and evaluation. The recording does not spell out the full accounting between the feedback categories and that final dataset. The central mechanism is nevertheless clear: feedback triggers investigation, reviewed attribution produces task-specific ground truth, and the train/test split supports both customization and measurement.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
What smaller models achieved
The reported baseline combined 96% routing accuracy for the 70B model with a 0.26-second time to first token. The untuned 8B model had approximately 14% accuracy but almost 70% lower latency. The smaller model therefore offered a useful speed advantage before it offered acceptable task performance.
The team then fine-tuned smaller variants, including 8B and 3B models. The resulting comparison changed the deployment choices:
| Router model | Reported routing accuracy |
|---|---|
| Untuned 70B | 96% |
| Fine-tuned 8B | Matched the 70B model’s 96% |
| 1B after customization | 94% |
The fine-tuned 8B model closed the baseline accuracy gap. The 1B result introduced another choice: whether the application could accept a two-percentage-point accuracy reduction in exchange for lower resource requirements. That decision depends on how consequential a routing failure is for the use case.
For a proposed 1B deployment in place of 70B, Arunagiri claims 98% lower inference cost, a 70-fold model-size reduction and 70-fold lower latency. The recording does not specify hardware, serving configuration or the cost methodology, so the cost and latency figures should remain attributed claims rather than portable performance expectations. A parameter-count reduction alone does not establish either saving.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Keep evaluating replacements
The useful outcome is not a permanent decision to use one particular small model. It is a repeatable process for finding replacements as production knowledge accumulates and new models become available. Periodic evaluation and fine-tuning can surface smaller candidates that meet the needs of a workflow currently served by a larger model.
Ongoing production logs and knowledge provide fresh material for that process. NeMo Microservices supplies the curation, customization and evaluation components; NIM supplies the serving layer for accepted models. Keeping those paths connected turns a one-time optimization experiment into an operating capability.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Monitor, analyze, plan and execute
The closing framework turns the case study into four recurring operational responsibilities:
- Monitor. Design intuitive ways to collect explicit and implicit feedback while respecting privacy requirements. Use those signals to detect inaccuracies and model drift.
- Analyze. Investigate why the agent behaved as it did. Classify errors, attribute failures to the responsible component and curate ground truth from that analysis.
- Plan. Identify candidate models, consider synthetic datasets, run experiments and fine-tune. Evaluate resource use and cost alongside task performance before choosing a change.
- Execute. Put the change into operation and establish a regular cadence for tracking accuracy, latency, performance and production logs.
Execution includes managing the end-to-end GenAI Ops pipeline after the training cycle finishes. Fresh production behavior becomes the evidence for the next cycle, allowing the agent’s models to keep adapting to the work they must perform.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Resources
From the talk
Version 25.4.0 documentation for preparing datasets, submitting customization jobs, evaluating models, and deploying through NIM.
Further reading
The speaker's companion explanation of NeMo services, NVInfo's router, and the smaller-model optimization results.
Historical introduction to Customizer's parameter-efficient tuning techniques and deployment architecture.
A separate customer-support tool-calling demonstration explaining log ingestion, teacher-based training, evaluation, and model promotion.
Updates since the talk
Later NVInfo research detailing feedback analysis, dataset curation, routing experiments, and the MAPE improvement loop.
Reference implementation and architecture documentation. Deprecated in April 2026 and no longer recommended for new production deployments.
Read the complete timestamped transcript
- 0:00
Hi there. My name is Sylendran. I work with NVIDIA on the Generative AI Platforms team. In this video, we'll look at what it takes to build effective AI agents that always stay relevant and helpful over time.
- 0:15
And it's not about powering them up with the next biggest LLM in the market. All they need is simple data flywheels. In this video, we'll look at what data flywheels are and how we applied them to an internal agent at NVIDIA.
- 0:29
I'll also share with you the lessons that we learned along the way, and most importantly, I'll leave you with tools and techniques and a framework to think about how you could build your own data flywheels for your own agentic AI use case.
- 0:44
Let's get started. So AI agents are generating a lot of buzz recently, and it's rightfully so. They're already starting to make their way into your workforce as new digital employees.
- 0:57
They come in different forms and sizes depending on the use case that you apply it to. They exist as customer service agent, software security agents, research agents, and et cetera, et cetera.
- 1:09
But what really are agents? If you look at the definition of agents, you will see agents are systems that are able to perceive, reason, and act on the underlying task.
- 1:20
That means they're able to look at data, they're able to reason and come up with a reasonable plan to act on the specific user query, and they make use of tools and functions and external systems to achieve the underlying task.
- 1:35
But in my opinion, what completes that cycle is if AI agents are able to capture and learn from user feedback along the way, and thus learning from that user preferences and data and constantly refining themselves to be more accurate and useful for the underlying task.
- 1:54
Right. But we all know building agents can be very painful, and scaling them can be increasingly challenging for sure. For one, the data changes rapidly. If you are an enterprise customer and you're using an agentic system for a use case, you constantly see a new data business intelligence flowing into your system.
- 2:15
And augmenting that is changing user preferences and customer needs, right? And if you're looking to deploy large language models, bigger chunkier models to support the underlying use case, you also see that your inference cost is going to go high.
- 2:31
So increased, increased usage drives increased cost. That's exactly where data flywheels can help. At its core, it starts with the enterprise data. Data flywheel is a continuous loop or cycle of data processing and curation, model customization, evaluation, and guardrailing them for safer interactions, building
- 2:55
state-of-the-art RAG pipelines alongside enterprise data, uh, to provide relevant, accurate responses. So as AI agents run in production environments, this data flywheel cycle triggers a continuous cycle of data curation, of ground truth using inference data, business intelligence, user feedback
- 3:21
to continuously experiment and evaluate existing and newer models to surface efficient, smaller models that provide at par accuracy expectations as that of larger language models, but which offer lower latency, faster inference, and effectively lower cost to, uh, ownership, total cost of ownership or inference cost.
- 3:46
Before we go into how do you build your data flywheel, uh, here's something exciting that we announced a few weeks back at NVIDIA. We announced NeMo Microservices. It's an end-to-end platform to build powerful agentic and generative AI systems, um, and also powerful data flywheels around them.
- 4:05
It, it's a model microservice that has various components for each stage of this data flywheel loop. There's NeMo Curator that helps with curating high-quality training dataset, including multimodal data.
- 4:21
NeMo Customizer helps with fine-tuning and customizing underlying models using state-of-the-art, um, customization techniques like LoRA, P-tuning, full SFT, and we're continuously adding more fine-tuning capabilities.
- 4:36
NeMo Evaluator to evaluate, um, benchmark on academic benchmarks, institutional benchmarks, uh, as well as using LLM-as-a-Judge. NeMo Guardrails for providing guardrail interactions for privacy, security, and safety, and NeMo Retriever to build state-of-the-art RAG pipelines.
- 4:56
And the best part about these NeMo microservices is the ease of use. They're exposed as simple-to-use API endpoints, and with just a single or a few API calls, you're able to customize large language models, evaluate them, guardrail them for the underlying use case.
- 5:13
And you also have the flexibility to run these microservices anywhere: on-prem, on cloud, on data center, even on the edge. And with NVIDIA support, you get the enterprise-grade stability and support as well.
- 5:27
Now, here is a sample data flywheel architecture leveraging NeMo microservices. The-- I like to think of it as Lego, uh, pieces where I can just put together these NeMo microservices components to build this entire data flywheel setup.
- 5:42
So in this sample architecture, you can look at the end user who's interacting with the front end of an agent. Think of it maybe, say, a customer service agent.
- 5:52
It's guardrailed for safer interactions behind the scenes, and, uh, on the back end, there is a model that is served as an NVIDIA NIM for optimized inference. So to figure out what's the right model to power this use case without compromising on accuracy, you can set up a data flywheel loop to constantly curate the data, store it
- 6:14
in NeMo Data Store, uh, and use NeMo Customizer and Evaluator to trigger a continuous cycle of retraining and evaluating. And once you see a certain model meet the target accuracy, you can use your, your IT admin or your-- an AI engineer can promote this model, uh, to power, uh, the agentic use case as the NVIDIA NIM underlying
- 6:37
this. So that's a sample architecture. Let's take a look at a real-world case study on how we adopted and built this data flywheel for our NVinfo agent, for an internal employee support agent that helps NVIDIA employees with access to enterprise knowledge across multiple domains.
- 6:58
It's a customer service or an employee support chatbot agent. It can help answer queries across a variety of domains, from HR benefits, financial earnings, IT help, product documentation, or anything, everything that an internal employee needs access to.
- 7:17
So here's a quick look at the underlying data flywheel architecture that we built for this particular agent.
- 7:26
Just like we saw, a user, in this case an employee, when they submit a query to this particular agent, uh, it's guardrailed for safety and, uh, secure interaction. And underneath, uh, this most important router agent, which is run by an LLM, um, is orchestrated by multiple expert agents underneath.
- 7:48
So each of these agents do a great job in their individual specific domain, and they're augmented with, you know, a rec-- a RAG pipeline to fetch the relevant information to answer the user query effectively.
- 8:01
So in order to decide what models to use and power each of these green models that you see, we have a data flywheel loop set up, uh, which constantly builds on top of the user feedback and production data inference log that come in when this router is in action.
- 8:21
So using a subject matter expert and human-in-the-loop feedback, a ground truth is continuously curated. NeMo Customizer and Evaluator are used to constantly evaluate multiple models to promote the most effective model as a NIM to power this router agent.
- 8:38
And the... If you're curious to know what these red ones are, since this is a multi-model agentic system, the red ones are essentially everything that could go wrong, uh, with, with this multi-model agentic system.
- 8:51
But, um, for the sake of this exercise and understanding a concept in detail, let's look at one of these in, in, in, uh, further detail. Let's look at the router agent since we've been spending some time talking about it.
- 9:04
So it's, it's basically orchestrated by a mixture of agent architecture underneath. So the router agent, depending on the user query, understands the intent and context and guides or routes the query to one of these expert agents, which further uses the RAG pipeline underneath to fetch the relevant information.
- 9:27
So the problem statement is: Given a user query, which of the agents, the expert agents should the router route the query to? Uh, and the goal here is to ensure that our agent, the routing agents, uh, accurately routes it to the correct expert agent, uh, but also using faster and cost-effective LLM to achieve this task.
- 9:53
So to start off, we compared and contrasted a variety of models to power this router agent. When we used a 3.1 70B or 3.3 70B variants, we noticed a ninety-six percent baseline accuracy that is just deploying the foundational pre-trained model as is without any, uh, fine-tuning or any actions on that.
- 10:15
And we noticed that the baseline accuracy was ninety-six percent in terms of routing the query to the right expert agent. But if you see the smaller variants, the accuracy is subpar, with the 8B variant is at below fourteen percent, and that's not ideal for our use case.
- 10:33
And that's exactly where most of the enterprise evaluations get it wrong. So they see a bigger model, uh, deliver state-of-the-art amazing accuracy of ninety-six percent, and there's a smaller model that gives you low accuracy, and they figure that out, "Hey, we need to go with, uh, a 70B variant because we're seeing a ninety-six to a fourteen percent
- 10:54
comparison. I don't think even with fine-tuning we would be able to get there." But that's exactly where data flywheels kind of help you. So what we did was we ran the 70B, um, uh, Llama variant, and, uh, we used and circulated a feedback form among NVIDIA employees, and we asked them to submit few-- we asked the employees
- 11:15
to submit a few queries and capture, uh, the feedback in terms of whether the, the response was useful to them or not. Uh, based on that, we were able to curate around thousand two twenty-four data points.
- 11:28
Seven twenty-nine of them were incorrect... Sorry, satisfactory responses, and four ninety-five of them were unsatisfactory responses. There was something wrong that our employees were not happy with.
- 11:42
So here's what we did. We used NeMo Evaluator and used N-LLM as a judge to investigate these four ninety-five unsatisfactory responses. We figured out that one forty of them, uh, were due to incorrect routing.
- 11:58
And using a subject matter expert and further manual analysis, we found out thirty-two of them were truly due to this incorrect routing. So we figured out and set up a ground truth data point-- data set of eight...
- 12:12
six eighty-five data points. And we split them into 60/40 to train or fine-tune smaller models and 40 to test and evaluate, uh, the accuracy. So you will be surprised to know just with six AD five data points, the results that we achieved were outstanding, and this was possible only because of the data flywheel setup.
- 12:36
So the 70B variant, like we saw, provided us or gave us an accuracy of ninety-six percent, uh, for accurately routing it to the right, uh, export agent. But it came with an, uh, latency of point two six seconds,
- 12:51
uh, to, to generate the first token response. Whereas the 8B variant gave us an accuracy of fourteen percent, but the latency was almost seventy x-- uh, seventy percent, uh, lower.
- 13:05
So on further fine-tuning various variants like the 8B and 3B models, we observed that the 8B with a bit of fine-tuning was able to match the accuracy of a 70B variant.
- 13:17
And, uh, depending on how critical-- the mission-critical your use case is, uh, you can even look at the 1B variant. It's got a ninety-four percent accuracy. That's not bad.
- 13:28
Uh, it's just two percent below 70B, so like I said, you can take, uh, a trade-off between how accurate you want your agent to be versus the cost that you wanna manage and the resource that you want-- resource that you wanna manage under it.
- 13:41
So by deploying, let's say, a 1B model, you're looking at a ninety-eight percent savings in terms of lower inference cost, and also 10x-- 70x model size reduction with 70x lower latency.
- 13:58
So that's the magic of data flywheel. And imagine building an automated loop or a cycle of continuous and periodic evaluation and fine-tuning as newer models are published into market and, uh, effectively surfacing smaller models that can run your agentic workflow to replace larger models that you already had in production.
- 14:20
Continuously learning from, uh, the ongoing production log and knowledge, uh, and using that to train smaller models is, is the power of data flywheel. So as next steps, I hope you will explore NeMo microservices and NVIDIA NIM to build your next agentic use case and also the data flywheel.
- 14:41
But here's a good framework to think about how do you build effective data flywheels.
- 14:48
So the first step starts with monitoring user feedback. Start thinking about intuitive ways to collect user feedback signals, uh, intuitive user experience, privacy compliance, implicit signals, and even explicit signals to understand whether the models that are powering your agentic system is going through model drift or, uh, any inaccuracies.
- 15:13
And spend time analyzing and attributing the errors or model drift that you see as to why the agent is behaving a certain way. Classify those errors, attribute those failures, create that ground truth data set that can be further used for the third and fourth step of plan and execute.
- 15:34
The planning is where you identify different models, generating synthetic data sets, experimenting with them, fine-tuning them, and understanding and optimizing your resource and cost, and, uh, putting them into action by executing it.
- 15:49
Execution does not just mean triggering a data flywheel cycle,
- 15:54
but also setting up a regular cadence or a mechanism to track your accuracy, latency, um [clears throat], monitoring, uh, performance and production logs, and, and truly managing your end-to-end GenAI Ops pipeline.
- 16:12
So that's a good framework to think about building data flywheels, and hope, um, this was super helpful for you to get started with building your own data flywheels for your agentic use case.
- 16:24
So that's all I have for you in this video. Hope this was informative, and you start thinking about building not just agentic use cases, but also data flywheels around them, and hopefully with NVIDIA tools and frameworks.
- 16:37
Thank you. Have a wonderful day.