AI Engineer World's Fair 2026
Bringing Continual Learning into Enterprises
Read the talk
Bringing Continual Learning into Enterprises
Production traces can teach an agent better behavior before an enterprise has a replayable environment. The next step is to make hints adapt to what the current model actually does.
From a talk by Samuel Denton
Before you start: Familiarity with language-model distillation, agent rollouts, and supervised fine-tuning will help; the article explains how trace provenance and hint provenance affect learning.
What can an agent learn from yesterday’s traces?
You have a batch of production traces from an agent that works, but makes mistakes. How do you turn those traces into a better model? That is the starting point for Samuel Denton, who leads platform research at Applied Compute: learn through hindsight from the requests an enterprise has already served.
The first choice is how tightly learning connects to production. A one-time batch provides a fixed record to learn from. A daily batch creates a recurring cycle: deploy a model, collect its traces, and use them to improve the next version. At the fully online end, inference and training become a unified engine:
- Serve a production request and generate a rollout.
- Derive a learning signal from that trace.
- Update the model.
- Serve the next request with the updated model.
These are points along a spectrum, rather than entirely separate training methods.
Many enterprises are still at the first point: they can supply historical traces and identify shortcomings, but do not yet have a live learning loop. Others are beginning to update models while serving production traffic. Supporting continual learning therefore means providing a useful entry point at both ends, rather than making a fully integrated serving-and-training system a prerequisite.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Where the teacher’s extra information comes from
The timing of trace collection is only one axis. The other is hint provenance: what information makes the teacher better informed than the student, or the policy currently doing the work? A hint supplies privileged information that the teacher can use to guide learning.
An offline hint comes from static information: a task rubric, a behavioral prior, or a recurring failure observed in production. For example, a customer-support agent may issue refunds too readily. That known problem can motivate a hint applied across many traces. The distinguishing feature is that the hint does not depend on the current model’s rollout.
An online hint is constructed from what the current policy actually did. It may incorporate the same behavioral priors, but its corrective information depends on the particular rollout. Crossing hint provenance with trace provenance produces four useful combinations. The boundaries simplify two continuous spectra; intermediate cases still matter.
| Combination | Trace used for learning | Basis of the hint |
|---|---|---|
| Offline trace, offline hint | Recorded production trace | Shared behavioral prior |
| Online trace, offline hint | Current-policy rollout | Shared behavioral prior |
| Offline trace, online hint | Historical prefix plus one current-policy step | That newly generated step |
| Online trace, online hint | Full current-policy rollout | What happened in that rollout |
In the first combination, the refund-related hint is applied to historical traces, and distillation targets the known behavior. In the second, the agent generates a fresh rollout, receives the shared hint, updates its policy, and continues serving traffic.
The third combination separates the history from the next decision. A trace recorded days earlier supplies an off-policy prefix: it was not generated by the policy now being trained. The current model then generates one step from that prefix without interacting with the environment. A hint is constructed from this new step. The fourth combination extends that dependence to the full rollout: let the current model finish, inspect what it did, construct a tailored hint, and distill against that online trace.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Learning without replay or a golden answer
Applied Compute concentrates on the first and fourth combinations. Offline traces plus offline hints do not require a replayable production environment. The team can inspect what happened and target a specific change: fewer unnecessary refunds, a formatting convention, or a different amount of reasoning. The enterprise can start with the data it already has.
Online traces plus online hints provide a more adaptive loop. They can come from a replayable environment or actual production traffic. Because each hint responds to the current rollout, the learning process can address different behaviors as they appear, then feed the resulting updates back into the model. Denton describes this as the more scalable route to improving overall evaluations.
Denton frames the progression as “improve for free today” and raise ceilings tomorrow. Here, the immediate opportunity is reuse of existing production traces, not a demonstration of zero training cost. As an online policy becomes available, its new traces can support repeated updates.
A central constraint is that enterprise tasks often lack a golden answer or a comprehensive rubric for every request. The learning method needs to extract useful behavioral guidance without assuming that a perfect target response is waiting in the dataset. Bringing serving and training infrastructure closer together makes continual updates possible; continuous ceiling-raising remains Denton’s outlook for that system.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Teaching a coding agent to submit before its deadline
The first experiment uses offline traces and offline hints to change a specific behavior on SWE-bench. Denton identifies the model as Qwen3.5-Thinking. In this setup, it could take up to eighty turns to submit an answer; the target was to make it call a submission tool before turn forty. The experiment asks whether the model can learn to wrap up its work earlier instead of following its usual longer reasoning path.
Three metrics separate successful submission from successful coding:
| Metric | What counts as success |
|---|---|
| Task complete rate | Agent calls the submission tool |
| Test pass rate | Environment passes all task tests, whether or not the agent submits |
| Combined SWE-bench pass rate | Both submission and test success |
The combined pass rate is the experiment’s intersection of the first two behaviors, not an interchangeable name for the underlying test pass rate. The aim is to increase combined success without degrading the code’s ability to pass tests.
The hint makes the approaching deadline concrete. It tells the model that roughly three turns remain before its forty-turn limit, points out its tendency to keep exploring rather than finish, and directs it to finalize the fix, verify it, and call the submission tool before time runs out. This supplies a behavioral correction without supplying the solution to the software issue.
Denton reports that the submission-tool call rate rose from about 22% to 60%, while the test pass rate stayed approximately constant, with a slight increase. The measured gain is therefore in the targeted submission behavior, rather than a claim that test success itself rose from 22% to 60%.
The surprising part is how that behavior emerged. The recorded traces essentially never called the desired submission tool. Distillation remained conditioned on those traces, and the teacher did not explicitly replace the tool-call tokens. Instead, it nudged the student’s reasoning toward finishing the task. The student became more likely to reach the submission decision even though the recorded trajectory did not contain the reasoning path that would have led to that call.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
One current-policy step changes what the teacher can teach
A small extension loosens the constraint imposed by the recorded trajectory: generate one step with the current model from the historical trace. As the student learns to wrap up its reasoning, that new step gives the teacher an opportunity to encourage the actual submission-tool token. The learning process now sees a decision made by the policy being trained, rather than only decisions preserved in old data.
Denton reports a larger improvement in the combined SWE-bench pass rate with this one-step extension than with fully offline learning, without giving a numerical value. This experiment still uses an offline hint. It adds a current-policy step but does not adopt the earlier taxonomy’s third combination in full, where the hint itself is constructed dynamically from that step. Trace freshness and hint provenance remain separate choices.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Correcting hyperlink formatting from live rollouts
The fully online example comes from a customer’s coding-agent harness. It required a particular hyperlink format that was far outside the usual output distribution of the post-trained models. The agent needed to learn that convention while retaining its underlying coding capabilities.
Two initial approaches caused problems: adding a reward for correct hyperlink formatting, and supervised fine-tuning on traces with correctly formatted links. Denton reports that both degraded overall coding-agent performance. The team then used online traces with online hints.
After each rollout, the hint identified how that rollout had formatted its hyperlinks and specified the format to use next time. Its information was specific to the model’s actual output, rather than a generic reminder of the rule. Denton reports that correct hyperlink formatting increased from approximately 15% to 80% with online hints.
The comparison used the same static reminder across rollouts: whenever producing a hyperlink, use the required format. That offline hint improved formatting, but substantially less than the rollout-specific correction. Preserving base coding ability was a requirement of the experiment; the presentation does not quantify coding retention after distillation. The demonstrated contrast is the larger formatting improvement when the hint responds to what the current policy actually did.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Put the hint at the decision that needs to change
Hint content is only part of the method. Hint placement determines where the teacher’s extra information can affect a decision. Applied Compute uses a judge to choose the point in a rollout where a hint should be injected, rather than placing every hint at the beginning. Distillation then focuses on the next step, or a few subsequent steps, rather than the entire rollout.
This keeps the update close to the moment when the teacher has something relevant to teach. Denton’s plotted KL learning signal decreases as the model moves farther from the hint. The practical implication is local training: identify the decision that needs correction, provide the hint there, and concentrate learning on the nearby steps where its effect is strongest.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Learn the relevant tokens, not every teacher preference
Relevance-masked self-distillation narrows learning further, from selected steps to selected tokens. In Denton’s description, an LLM judge chooses which teacher tokens the student should learn from. A teacher may prefer particular connector words, for example, even though those preferences have nothing to do with the behavior being taught. Copying those differences adds unrelated changes to the update.
Selecting relevant tokens aims to preserve the corrective signal while excluding incidental teacher preferences. Denton reports better acquisition of a strongly out-of-distribution behavior and better avoidance of catastrophic degradation with this approach. The two locality techniques address different scopes: per-step hinting chooses the moment to teach, while relevance masking chooses which token-level differences matter within the learning signal.
That leaves an enterprise with a practical progression. Historical traces and static hints provide an entry point for teaching a known behavior. Online traces and dynamic hints make the loop responsive to new behavior as the model changes. Denton’s higher-ceiling vision rests on the adaptive judge: instead of repeatedly correcting a fixed list of mistakes, it can respond to what the current model actually does in production and guide improvement across multiple areas.
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
Applied Compute explains token filtering, judge-selected relevance masks, and experiments teaching an unusual spelling behavior while measuring retained capabilities.
Official code and instructions for evaluating generated patches on real software issues.
Updates since the talk
A later account of training from stored traces, resampling individual turns, and running full environments, with tools for inspecting hint-driven updates.
Read the complete timestamped transcript
- 0:00
[upbeat music] All right. Can you hear me? Yeah. Take that as a yes.
- 0:16
Um, cool. So we'll go ahead and get started here. Uh, today what we're gonna be talking about is bringing continual learning into enterprises, uh, and how we're doing it at Applied Compute.
- 0:25
Uh, bit of an intro. My name's Sam Denton. Uh, I lead the platform research team at Applied Compute.
- 0:31
So here's our loose agenda for the day. Uh, we're gonna start by talking about the distillation spectrum and how we think about different areas on the spectrum of distillation.
- 0:41
Then we're gonna talk about where value accrues along this distillation spectrum. We'll show a bunch of data on how distillation is working in enterprises. Uh, if I have time, I'll try and get to some tips and tricks we found at Applied Compute to making self-distillation work and continual learning work in the enterprise.
- 0:58
And then finally, we'll wrap up and talk about sort of what we've learned. Um, also, I'm going under the assumption that most people have some kind of context on distillation and self-distillation.
- 1:08
I figured by three PM on a continual learning day, you'd had enough of it, so I'm just gonna dive right into it.
- 1:15
Um, so first, I wanna just talk about the distillation spectrum and how we think about the spectrum at Applied Compute.
- 1:22
So, uh, I wanna define this like offline and online distillation spectrum. Um, so we'll start on sort of one end of the spectrum over here, which is offline distillation.
- 1:33
What this looks like is you get a single batch of traces from a production agent, and you're meant to just do something with it, right? Like, how do you learn from a bunch of production traces of some agent out in the wild?
- 1:44
Um, you wanna learn via hindsight. You wanna learn via the mistakes the agent made, um, whatever you can learn from this one-time batch of production da- traces. Um, and this is sort of the offline end of the spectrum.
- 1:58
In the middle, we have something that might look like a daily batch of production traces. So maybe you deploy a model, and then at the end of every day, you collect a bunch of traces, and you figure out, "What can I do with these traces?
- 2:08
How do I make use of these traces?" This is not as offline as a single sort of lump of production traces, but it's not fully online in the sense of all the way on the right here, we have this sort of unified engine of putting inference and training together, right?
- 2:23
And this is sort of the holy grail of continual learning, where I have a model that's serving production traffic. It does a rollout. It creates a trace. We figure out how to learn from that trace.
- 2:33
We update the model, and then we serve the next production request. So there are a bunch of different points along this spectrum where we think this distillation and continual learning can be useful.
- 2:42
But this is how we think about sort of the two ends of the spectrum and how we try and do continual learning across the whole spectrum.
- 2:50
Um, on the left side, on the offline side of traces, this is sort of where a lot of enterprises are today. Basically, they say, "Okay, we have a bunch of production traffic.
- 2:59
We have a bunch of traces. Like, figure out a way to make our agent better. It's clearly doing something, but it clearly can be better." And so how do you make our agent better today given sort of this one-time batch of production traces?
- 3:11
And on the right side, this is sort of the full, complete flywheel, right? This is, uh-- We have some enterprises who are willing to sort of start getting something into production, which looks like this fully online continual learning, where we essentially deploy a model, and then we're able to make updates as the model is serving production traffic.
- 3:29
Um, our goal at Applied Compute is to meet enterprises where they are, right? So they're across this spectrum, and we wanna provide value across both ends of the spectrum.
- 3:40
So this is sort of online and offline distillation, but there's a whole other axis-- There's a whole other axis here we think about, which is hinting, right? So the whole point of distillation is we have some kind of information that allows us to create a teacher model which is smarter than the student model or the on-policy model.
- 3:56
Um, in order to create a teacher that's smarter than this on-policy model, we need to create some kind of hint or s- have some kind of privileged information. And so the question is, where does this hint come from?
- 4:07
So in the offline hinting world, we're deriving hints from some static or offline data. So this can be potentially known rubrics for a single task. It can be general priors about behavior that needs to get better, such as like a customer support agent that is too willing to give refunds, for example, right?
- 4:23
This is some known behavior that you're trying to improve. Um, or it could just be general things that we've seen in production about sort of loss reports and saying, "Oh, the model tends to miss on questions like this."
- 4:34
But it's independent of the online model's rollout. So there's a whole world of creating offline hints from static data.
- 4:42
There's also online hints, right? And so online hinting is-- are hints that are dynamically constructed from the online rollout. The idea here is that we can also inject other pieces of information like behavior priors and things like that.
- 4:56
But the goal is to create a hint that is completely dependent on the online rollout and the online policy that's doing the work.
- 5:05
So we have these two online and offline spectrums. We have hinting, and we have distillation,
- 5:11
which leaves us with a very nice two-by-two grid, right? And so here are sort of like the four types of distillation that we see. And again, these are all spectrums, right?
- 5:20
So I've drawn lines and put things in boxes where boxes sometimes don't make sense as boxes, but more as spectrums. But in general, this is sort of like the, the four quadrants of the continual learning distillation spectrum.
- 5:33
Um, so in the first box, we have an offline hint paired with an offline production trace. So what this looks like is we take a trace from production, and we have some prior about how generally production traces aren't good enough.
- 5:46
Again, maybe customer support is not, uh, is too quick to give refunds, things like that. And we give-- And we construct a hint that we apply to all of these offline production traces.
- 5:57
And then we do this distillation task, and eventually, we sort of create some smarter model from offline hints paired with offline production traces.
- 6:05
In the second quadrant, we have offline hints paired with on-policy and online production traces. So again, what this looks like is we have a hint of a behavior we're trying to improve.
- 6:15
We let an online mo-- uh, let an online agent do a rollout. We inject some hint that we're injecting into all of our rollouts, try and update the policy model, and then continue serving production traffic.
- 6:28
In the third quadrant, we have off-policy traces with some on-policy step and hints that are constructed against that one on-policy step. Um, I'll talk a little bit more about what an on-policy step means later on.
- 6:41
But basically, the idea is that the trace that led to the point where I inject a hint was fully off policy. It was some production, some production trace that came from a few days ago, and we are, we are using our on-policy model to just roll out one step without actually having to interact with the environment, and
- 6:59
we construct the hint based on what that on-policy model did in that one step. So again, we have an offline production trace. We pick a moment in time to do some online step, and then we construct a hint based on what the on-policy model did in that one online step.
- 7:15
And then finally, we have this fourth quadrant, which is sort of online hints with online production traces. So what this means is we have an on-policy model, do a bunch of things in production.
- 7:26
It finishes, we stop, we look at what the on-- uh, the online model did. We then create a hint dynamically from the full rollout that the online model did, and then we construct a hint, and then we do some sort of distillation against this online production trace with an online hint.
- 7:44
So in general, at Applied Compute, we're really, really fo-- Again, we do research across all four quadrants of this, um, sort of table, but we're really focused on quadrant one and quadrant four.
- 7:55
And so quadrant one basically is how we meet enterprises who are, who are ready to have their production agents improve today. Um, and so what this looks like is we don't actually have to have replayability of a production environment, right?
- 8:08
We can take a bunch of production traces, and we just look at what happened, and then we can essentially construct... We have these offline hints for behavior changes that we're trying to target and improve.
- 8:19
Again, not giving refunds quite as often. Um, I'll talk a little bit about formatting things or reasoning, uh, like the amount of reasoning we're trying to encourage. But basically, these are off-policy traces where we inject some offline hint, and this allows us to really target specific behaviors.
- 8:36
On quadrant four, um, this is sort of our most scalable solution to climbing overall evals. Um, so this can be done with either a replayable environment or actually serving production traffic.
- 8:46
And because we're constructing these hints online in a dynamic way, that we can actually cater to a bunch of different behaviors via distillation, right? Um, and this is how we complete this flywheel, where we have an online model serving production traffic, constructing hints online dynamically based on what it did, and then updating our model accordingly.
- 9:07
So again, um, this is sort of our full training taxonomy. Uh, we've done work across all four, and today I'm really gonna focus on quadrant one and quadrant four, which is where we spend most of our time.
- 9:20
Um, in terms of how that grid maps to where value accrues, this is sort of how we think about it. Um, we can improve for free today, and we can raise all ceilings tomorrow.
- 9:31
We can improve for free today by using offline production traces. Give us a dump of your production data, we'll find a way to make it valuable. And then as we deploy an online policy model, that we can then raise the ceilings continuously by updating the model as it's serving production traffic.
- 9:49
Um, and I think the most important thing I wanna call out here is that when we think about how we do this, we wanna do this without having access to some golden answer.
- 9:58
Um, I think this is something that, like, generally frustrates me a lot in the distillation space, is a lot of distillation work is done assuming you have some kind of golden answer that you can distill into the model, and this is often not the case.
- 10:09
Um, and so in general, we wanna think about how we can do continual learning and distillation without having some beautifully golden rubric to accompany every task. Um, as infra collapses between serving and training, we're automatically going to raise the ceiling continuously via online distillation.
- 10:26
So again, we have this spectrum, one time batch of off- offline production data and then online, um, traces, and our goal is to provide value across the full spectrum.
- 10:40
Cool. So let's spend a little bit of time talking about the data and some of the results across these four quadrants.
- 10:46
Um, so in the world of offline traces, offline hint, we have this setup, right, where our goal is to essentially take a Qwen3.5-Thinking model against SWE-bench and get it to submit its reasoning faster than it normally does.
- 10:59
So on SWE-bench, we found that this model was essentially taking, like, up to eighty turns to submit its answer. What we wanted to do was encourage it to call a tool to submit its task before turn [REDACTED:age].
- 11:11
And the reason for that was basically to prove to ourselves that we could get it to sort of wrap up its reasoning quickly by turn [REDACTED:age] without letting it do its normal sort of full reasoning chain.
- 11:21
Um, and so we'll, we'll talk about three metrics here. The first is the task complete rate, which is the percentage of the time that the agent calls this tool to, quote-unquote, "finish a submission."
- 11:31
The second is test pass rate. So this is how we measure the regression in performance on sort of the base task, and this is the percentage of the time that the environment passes all tests accompanying the SWE-bench task, um, irrespective of whether the agent, you know, submitted this-- submitted the task via this tool call.
- 11:49
And then finally, we have our SWE-bench task rate, wh-- or pass rate, which is how we basically combine these two, these two metrics. It's the intersection of those two behaviors.
- 11:57
And so the goal is we wanna raise the SWE-bench pass rate performance while not degrading the test pass rate. Uh, and I've included a, a hint here of what this looks like in practice.
- 12:07
It says something like, "You are near your [REDACTED:age]-turn limit. There's only about three turns left. You have to keep-- You often keep exploring and forget to wrap up." Investigating.
- 12:15
So finalize and verify your fix, and then call this tool before, uh, you run out of time.
- 12:22
So this is what the results look like. Um, so we were able to target the specific behi- behavioral change, which was to call this tool when it wanted to submit a task, and without any degradation to the overall performance.
- 12:35
So you can see that sort of maroon color is the test pass rate. It's relatively constant. In fact, it goes up a little bit. But the task complete call rate increases dramatically from about twenty-two percent to sixty percent.
- 12:48
And so we're able to add this behavior. Um, and I think the, the really interesting, surprising result here is, again, this is in the fully sort of like offline world.
- 12:56
And so we're, we're taking a production trace or a trace that was created ahead of time that never-- basically never called this task complete tool, and we're nudging with the student and, uh, teacher models, uh, the, the, the student model towards calling this task complete tool call without ever specifically changing the tokens for the tool call.
- 13:18
Because again, the rollout is conditioned on the quote-unquote production trace, right? And so it never had the reasoning path to think to call the tool call, and so the teacher doesn't force the tool call.
- 13:28
It just starts to force the, the reasoning path towards the tool call without ever actually changing the tool call, which I think was really cool and surprising to us.
- 13:39
Now, that being said, there actually is like a little bit of a cheat here that we can use, which is that you can-- and as I mentioned earlier, you can roll out just one step from the on-policy model given an offline production trace.
- 13:51
And when we do this, we're obviously see that the student model sort of learns to wrap up its reasoning, and eventually the teacher starts encouraging it to actually call this tool token.
- 14:00
Um, and so you can see by having something that's a little bit more on policy that we're able to increase sort of the SWE-bench pass rate more than in, in the fully offline world.
- 14:10
So again, this is sort of offline trace, offline hint with just one step on policy.
- 14:17
Cool. So then what does it look like in sort of the fully online, online trace, online hint world where it's serving production traffic? So for a certain production use case we had, we needed to teach a coding agent to use very specific formatting for hyperlinks due to a certain harness, certain harness nuance of one of our customers.
- 14:37
And obviously, this coding agent needed to not regress on any of the base coding agent capabilities. Um, now the problem here is that these, these hyperlink formats were very, very out of distribution for previously post-trained models.
- 14:49
And so when we tried things like giving-- inc-- adding a reward for specific hyperlink formatting or even doing SFT on traces where we knew the hyperlink was correctly formatted, we saw that there was this sort of degradation in overall coding agent performance.
- 15:03
Uh, and so what we did here is set this up as an online trace with an online hint.
- 15:09
Um, so basically what this looked like is that we would do a rollout, then we would inject a hint specific to the rollout that occurred from the on-policy model, and then say, "In your prior rollout, you'd formatted hyperlinks like this.
- 15:22
Next time, make sure to hy-- make su-- next time, make sure to format hyperlinks in this way instead." And so what we were able to see is that the percentage of correct hyperlink formatting jumped drastically from about, I guess, fifteen percent all the way up to around eighty percent.
- 15:37
And the other line-- the other, uh, graph here shows what happens if we try to do offline hinting. So this is basically for every single rollout, apply the same hint, which says, "Remember that when you do hyperlinks, you have to format it this way."
- 15:50
Um, and you can see that we do climb the behavior a little bit, but far less than in this online hinting world. So here we've seen sort of like two different results, one where we can use offline hinting and offline traces to climb from production traces, and then another one where we're able to actually use sort of
- 16:06
the on-policiness of the model and online hints to improve a behavior when we're serving production traffic.
- 16:13
Um, okay, cool. I think I have en-enough time here to talk about a little bit of tips and tricks here. Um, so the first is that we found that per-step hinting is dramat-- is very, very important to making distillation work.
- 16:25
Um, so rather than injecting a hint to the beginning of a rollout, we use a judge to essentially decide where in the rollout we should be injecting hints, and then, uh, actually have found that it's best to just do distillation on that next step that occurs or maybe a few steps forward rather than the entire rollout.
- 16:42
Because that's really the turn and the moment in time that you want to have the teacher teach something to the student. Um, I-- you can also see in this graph here that this KL learning signal basically goes down as you get further and further away from the hint, which, which makes sense.
- 16:58
Uh, another trick that we've used is something called Relevance-masked self-distillation. Um, and there's a blog post on our website about how we've done this. But essentially, the idea is that we use an LLM judge to sample and choose which tokens we actually learn from from our teacher-- from our, uh, teacher model.
- 17:15
Um, because often we'll see that the teacher model has preferences of certain connector words that are not really relevant to actually what we're trying to teach the student. And we can see in sort of the graph at the bottom that we're able to increase our ability to learn a very, very out-of-distribution behavior while also being better about
- 17:34
avoiding catastrophic deg-degradation. Cool. So overall, where does that leave us? So obviously, I assume everyone here is sort of on the distillation train, but it's a very, very valuable tool towards continual learning.
- 17:52
We introduced a spectrum of offline and online rollouts, as well as offline and online hinting and how we use them towards distillation. So we use offline hinting with offline production traces to provide value on day one to enterprise clients.
- 18:08
Give us production traces, and we can teach it a certain behavior. We then use online hinting and online production traces to do this highest ceiling sort of continuous learning improvement across multiple improvement areas because that judge is able to adapt to whatever the online model does in production.
- 18:27
And finally, I just wanna say thank you to the team that worked on this. A lot of, lot of the work was done by others. I just kind of got to present it.
- 18:34
Um, and we're hiring and having a lot of fun working on research problems around continual learning. So if you're interested, reach out to [REDACTED:email_address] or, uh, yeah, just email me as well.
- 18:44
So thank you, everyone. [outro music]