Announcing Copilot leadership update - The Official Microsoft Blog
<a href="https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiiAFBVV95cUxPd1pKVzhNeERoXzRWMl9yUTV5MmtNU1FMME5uQ0xtTGNwU2hyY1lEX3JXMzB4NVIweVBVSmJVa1RRZWNkQjl1enVodU1vREloYzdHWjVmbkc3XzliUmNLMWN2T0VVR3dsSlpEc3JiYlhUYmV3RllKWDBhZHlmR3Z0UEJxYXNobVow?oc=5" target="_blank">Announcing Copilot leadership update</a> <font color="#6f6f6f">The Official Microsoft Blog</font>
Could not retrieve the full article text.
Read on GNews AI Microsoft →Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
updatecopilot
Production RAG: From Anti-Patterns to Platform Engineering
RAG is a distributed system . It becomes clear when moving beyond demos into production. It consists of independent services such as ingestion, retrieval, inference, orchestration, and observability. Each component introduces its own latency, scaling characteristics, and failure modes, making coordination, observability, and fault tolerance essential. RAG flowchart In regulated environments such as banking, these systems must also satisfy strict governance, auditability, and change-control requirements aligned with standards like SOX and PCI DSS. This article builds on existing frameworks like 12 Factor Agents (Dex Horthy)¹ and Google’s 16 Factor App² by exploring key anti-patterns and introducing the pillars required to take a typical RAG pipeline to production. I’ve included code snippet
Word2Vec Explained: The Moment Words Became Relations
How models first learned meaning from context — and why that changed everything In the first post, we built the base layer: Text → Tokens → Numbers → (lots of math) → Tokens → Text In the second post, we stayed with the deeper question: Once words become numbers, how does meaning not disappear? We saw that the answer is not “because numbers are magical.” The answer is this: the numbers are learned in a space that preserves relationships. That was the real story of embeddings. Now we are ready for the next step. Because once you accept that words can become numbers without losing meaning, the next question becomes unavoidable: How are those numbers actually learned? This is where Word2Vec enters the story. And Word2Vec matters for more than historical reasons. It was not just a clever neura
Engineering Algorithms for Dynamic Greedy Set Cover
arXiv:2604.03152v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In the dynamic set cover problem, the input is a dynamic universe of elements and a fixed collection of sets. As elements are inserted or deleted, the goal is to efficiently maintain an approximate minimum set cover. While the past decade has seen significant theoretical breakthroughs for this problem, a notable gap remains between theoretical design and practical performance, as no comprehensive experimental study currently exists to validate these results. In this paper, we bridge this gap by implementing and evaluating four greedy-based dynamic algorithms across a diverse range of real-world instances. We derive our implementations from state-of-the-art frameworks (such as GKKP, STOC 2017; SU, STOC 2023; SUZ, FOCS 2024), which we simplify
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Releases
Simple parallel estimation of the partition ratio for Gibbs distributions
arXiv:2505.18324v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We consider the problem of estimating the partition function $Z(\beta)=\sum_x \exp(\beta(H(x))$ of a Gibbs distribution with the Hamiltonian $H:\Omega\rightarrow\{0\}\cup[1,n]$. As shown in [Harris & Kolmogorov 2024], the log-ratio $q=\ln (Z(\beta_{\max})/Z(\beta_{\min}))$ can be estimated with accuracy $\epsilon$ using $O(\frac{q \log n}{\epsilon^2})$ calls to an oracle that produces a sample from the Gibbs distribution for parameter $\beta\in[\beta_{\min},\beta_{\max}]$. That algorithm is inherently sequential, or {\em adaptive}: the queried values of $\beta$ depend on previous samples. Recently, [Liu, Yin & Zhang 2024] developed a non-adaptive version that needs $O( q (\log^2 n) (\log q + \log \log n + \epsilon^{-2}) )$ samples.
Near-Optimal Space Lower Bounds for Streaming CSPs
arXiv:2604.01400v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In a streaming constraint satisfaction problem (streaming CSP), a $p$-pass algorithm receives the constraints of an instance sequentially, making $p$ passes over the input in a fixed order, with the goal of approximating the maximum fraction of satisfiable constraints. We show near optimal space lower bounds for streaming CSPs, improving upon prior works. (1) Fei, Minzer and Wang (\textit{STOC 2026}) showed that for any CSP, the basic linear program defines a threshold $\alpha_{\mathrm{LP}}\in [0,1]$ such that, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, an $(\alpha_{\mathrm{LP}} - \varepsilon)$-approximation can be achieved using constant passes and polylogarithmic space, whereas achieving $(\alpha_{\mathrm{LP}} + \varepsilon)$-approximation requires $\Ome
Polynomial-Time Almost Log-Space Tree Evaluation by Catalytic Pebbling
arXiv:2604.02606v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The Tree Evaluation Problem ($\mathsf{TreeEval}$) is a computational problem originally proposed as a candidate to prove a separation between complexity classes $\mathsf{P}$ and $\mathsf{L}$. Recently, this problem has gained significant attention after Cook and Mertz (STOC 2024) showed that $\mathsf{TreeEval}$ can be solved using $O(\log n\log\log n)$ bits of space. Their algorithm, despite getting very close to showing $\mathsf{TreeEval} \in \mathsf{L}$, falls short, and in particular, it does not run in polynomial time. In this work, we present the first polynomial-time, almost logarithmic-space algorithm for $\mathsf{TreeEval}$. For any $\varepsilon>0$, our algorithm solves $\mathsf{TreeEval}$ in time $\mathrm{poly}(n)$ while using $O(\
A Lower Bound for Grothendieck's Constant
arXiv:2603.22616v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We show that Grothendieck's real constant $K_{G}$ satisfies $K_G\geq c+10^{-26}$, improving on the lower bound of $c=1.676956674215576\ldots$ of Davie and Reeds from 1984 and 1991, respectively.
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!