Spaces:
Sleeping
Sleeping
| # π¬ Eidolon Cognitive Tutor - Research Lab Roadmap | |
| ## Vision: Showcase Cutting-Edge AI/ML Research in Education | |
| Transform the tutor into a **living research demonstration** that visualizes state-of-the-art AI concepts, inspired by recent breakthrough papers (2020-2024). | |
| --- | |
| ## π― Core Research Themes | |
| ### 1. **Explainable AI & Interpretability** | |
| *Show users HOW the AI thinks, not just WHAT it outputs* | |
| #### π§ Cognitive Architecture Visualization | |
| **Papers:** | |
| - "Attention is All You Need" (Vaswani et al., 2017) | |
| - "A Mathematical Framework for Transformer Circuits" (Elhage et al., 2021) | |
| - "Interpretability in the Wild" (Anthropic, 2023) | |
| **Implementation:** | |
| ``` | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| β π§ COGNITIVE PROCESS VIEWER β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ€ | |
| β Query: "Explain quantum entanglement" β | |
| β β | |
| β [1] Token Attention Heatmap β | |
| β ββββββββββββ "quantum" β physics β | |
| β ββββββββββββ "entangle" β connect β | |
| β β | |
| β [2] Knowledge Retrieval β | |
| β β³ Quantum Mechanics (0.94) β | |
| β β³ Bell's Theorem (0.87) β | |
| β β³ EPR Paradox (0.81) β | |
| β β | |
| β [3] Reasoning Chain β | |
| β Think: Need simple analogy β | |
| β β Retrieve: coin flip metaphor β | |
| β β Synthesize: connected particles β | |
| β β Verify: scientifically accurate β | |
| β β | |
| β [4] Confidence: 89% Β±3% β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| ``` | |
| **Features:** | |
| - Real-time attention weight visualization | |
| - Interactive layer-by-layer activation inspection | |
| - Concept activation mapping | |
| - Neuron-level feature visualization | |
| --- | |
| ### 2. **Meta-Learning & Few-Shot Adaptation** | |
| *Demonstrate how AI learns to learn* | |
| #### π Adaptive Learning System | |
| **Papers:** | |
| - "Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML)" (Finn et al., 2017) | |
| - "Learning to Learn by Gradient Descent" (Andrychowicz et al., 2016) | |
| - "Meta-Learning with Implicit Gradients" (Rajeswaran et al., 2019) | |
| **Implementation:** | |
| ```python | |
| class MetaLearningTutor: | |
| """ | |
| Adapts teaching strategy based on learner's responses. | |
| Uses inner loop (student adaptation) and outer loop (strategy refinement). | |
| """ | |
| def adapt(self, student_responses: List[Response]) -> TeachingPolicy: | |
| # Extract learning patterns | |
| mastery_curve = self.estimate_mastery(student_responses) | |
| confusion_points = self.identify_gaps(student_responses) | |
| # Few-shot adaptation: learn from 3-5 interactions | |
| adapted_policy = self.maml_adapt( | |
| base_policy=self.teaching_policy, | |
| support_set=student_responses[-5:], # Last 5 interactions | |
| adaptation_steps=3 | |
| ) | |
| return adapted_policy | |
| ``` | |
| **Visualization:** | |
| - Learning curve evolution | |
| - Gradient flow diagrams | |
| - Task similarity clustering | |
| - Adaptation trajectory in embedding space | |
| --- | |
| ### 3. **Knowledge Graphs & Multi-Hop Reasoning** | |
| *Show structured knowledge retrieval and reasoning* | |
| #### πΈοΈ Interactive Knowledge Graph | |
| **Papers:** | |
| - "Graph Neural Networks: A Review" (Zhou et al., 2020) | |
| - "Knowledge Graphs" (Hogan et al., 2021) | |
| - "REALM: Retrieval-Augmented Language Model Pre-Training" (Guu et al., 2020) | |
| **Implementation:** | |
| ``` | |
| Query: "How does photosynthesis relate to climate change?" | |
| Knowledge Graph Traversal: | |
| [Photosynthesis] ββproducesβββ [Oxygen] | |
| β β | |
| absorbs CO2 breathed by animals | |
| β β | |
| [Carbon Cycle] βββaffectsββ [Climate Change] | |
| β | |
| regulated by | |
| β | |
| [Deforestation] ββcausesβββ [Global Warming] | |
| Multi-Hop Reasoning Path (3 hops): | |
| 1. Photosynthesis absorbs CO2 (confidence: 0.99) | |
| 2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (confidence: 0.98) | |
| 3. Therefore photosynthesis mitigates climate change (confidence: 0.92) | |
| ``` | |
| **Features:** | |
| - Interactive graph exploration (zoom, filter, highlight) | |
| - GNN reasoning path visualization | |
| - Confidence propagation through graph | |
| - Counterfactual reasoning ("What if we remove this node?") | |
| --- | |
| ### 4. **Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)** | |
| *Transparent source attribution and knowledge grounding* | |
| #### π RAG Pipeline Visualization | |
| **Papers:** | |
| - "Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP" (Lewis et al., 2020) | |
| - "Dense Passage Retrieval" (Karpukhin et al., 2020) | |
| - "REPLUG: Retrieval-Augmented Black-Box Language Models" (Shi et al., 2023) | |
| **Implementation:** | |
| ``` | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| β RAG PIPELINE INSPECTOR β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ€ | |
| β [1] Query Encoding β | |
| β "Explain transformer architecture" β | |
| β β Embedding: [0.23, -0.45, ...] β | |
| β β | |
| β [2] Semantic Search β | |
| β π Searching 10M+ passages... β | |
| β β Top 5 retrieved in 12ms β | |
| β β | |
| β [3] Retrieved Context β | |
| β π "Attention is All You Need" β | |
| β Relevance: 0.94 | Cited: 87k β | |
| β π "BERT: Pre-training..." β | |
| β Relevance: 0.89 | Cited: 52k β | |
| β [show more...] β | |
| β β | |
| β [4] Re-ranking (Cross-Encoder) β | |
| β Passage 1: 0.94 β 0.97 β¬ β | |
| β Passage 2: 0.89 β 0.85 β¬ β | |
| β β | |
| β [5] Generation with Attribution β | |
| β "Transformers use self-attention β | |
| β [1] to process sequences..." β | |
| β β | |
| β [1] Vaswani et al. 2017, p.3 β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| ``` | |
| **Features:** | |
| - Embedding space visualization (t-SNE/UMAP) | |
| - Semantic similarity scores | |
| - Source credibility indicators | |
| - Hallucination detection | |
| --- | |
| ### 5. **Uncertainty Quantification & Calibration** | |
| *Show when the AI is confident vs. uncertain* | |
| #### π Confidence Calibration System | |
| **Papers:** | |
| - "On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks" (Guo et al., 2017) | |
| - "Uncertainty in Deep Learning" (Gal, 2016) | |
| - "Conformal Prediction Under Covariate Shift" (Tibshirani et al., 2019) | |
| **Implementation:** | |
| ```python | |
| class UncertaintyQuantifier: | |
| """ | |
| Estimates epistemic (model) and aleatoric (data) uncertainty. | |
| """ | |
| def compute_uncertainty(self, response: str) -> Dict: | |
| return { | |
| "epistemic": self.model_uncertainty(), # What model doesn't know | |
| "aleatoric": self.data_uncertainty(), # Inherent ambiguity | |
| "calibration_score": self.calibration(), # How well-calibrated | |
| "conformal_set": self.conformal_predict() # Prediction interval | |
| } | |
| ``` | |
| **Visualization:** | |
| ``` | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| β UNCERTAINTY DASHBOARD β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ€ | |
| β Overall Confidence: 76% Β±8% β | |
| β β | |
| β Epistemic (Model) ββββββββββ 60% β | |
| β β Model hasn't seen enough examples β | |
| β β | |
| β Aleatoric (Data) ββββββββββ 85% β | |
| β β Question has inherent ambiguity β | |
| β β | |
| β Calibration Plot: β | |
| β 1.0 β€ β± β | |
| β β β± β | |
| β β β± (perfectly calibrated) β | |
| β 0.0 βββββββββββββββ β | |
| β β | |
| β β οΈ Low confidence detected! β | |
| β π‘ Suggestion: "Could you clarify...?" β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| ``` | |
| --- | |
| ### 6. **Constitutional AI & Safety** | |
| *Demonstrate alignment and safety mechanisms* | |
| #### π‘οΈ Safety-First Design | |
| **Papers:** | |
| - "Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback" (Bai et al., 2022) | |
| - "Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback" (Ouyang et al., 2022) | |
| - "Red Teaming Language Models" (Perez et al., 2022) | |
| **Implementation:** | |
| ``` | |
| User Query: "How do I hack into..." | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| β π‘οΈ SAFETY SYSTEM ACTIVATED β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ€ | |
| β [1] Harmfulness Detection β | |
| β β οΈ Potential harm score: 0.87 β | |
| β Category: Unauthorized access β | |
| β β | |
| β [2] Constitutional Principles β | |
| β β Principle 1: Do no harm β | |
| β β Principle 2: Respect privacy β | |
| β β Principle 3: Follow laws β | |
| β β | |
| β [3] Response Correction β | |
| β Original: [redacted harmful path] β | |
| β Revised: "I can't help with that, β | |
| β but I can explain..." β | |
| β β | |
| β [4] Educational Redirect β | |
| β Suggested: "Cybersecurity ethics" β | |
| β "Penetration testing" β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| ``` | |
| **Features:** | |
| - Real-time safety scoring | |
| - Principle-based reasoning chains | |
| - Adversarial robustness testing | |
| - Red team attack visualization | |
| --- | |
| ### 7. **Tree-of-Thoughts Reasoning** | |
| *Show deliberate problem-solving strategies* | |
| #### π³ Reasoning Tree Visualization | |
| **Papers:** | |
| - "Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving" (Yao et al., 2023) | |
| - "Chain-of-Thought Prompting" (Wei et al., 2022) | |
| - "Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought" (Wang et al., 2022) | |
| **Implementation:** | |
| ``` | |
| Problem: "How would you explain relativity to a 10-year-old?" | |
| Tree of Thoughts: | |
| [Root: Strategy Selection] | |
| / | \ | |
| / | \ | |
| [Analogy] [Story] [Demo] | |
| / | \ | |
| [Train] [Ball] [Twin] [Experiment] | |
| / | | | | | |
| [Fast] [Slow] [Time] [Space] [Show] | |
| β β β β β | |
| Eval:0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 | |
| Selected Path (highest score): | |
| Strategy: Analogy β Concept: Train β Example: Slow train | |
| Self-Consistency Check: | |
| β Sampled 5 reasoning paths | |
| β 4/5 agree on train analogy | |
| β Confidence: 94% | |
| ``` | |
| **Features:** | |
| - Interactive tree navigation | |
| - Branch pruning visualization | |
| - Self-evaluation scores at each node | |
| - Comparative reasoning paths | |
| --- | |
| ### 8. **Cognitive Load Theory** | |
| *Optimize learning based on cognitive science* | |
| #### π§ Cognitive Load Estimation | |
| **Papers:** | |
| - "Cognitive Load Theory" (Sweller, 1988) | |
| - "Zone of Proximal Development" (Vygotsky) | |
| - "Measuring Cognitive Load Using Dual-Task Methodology" (BrΓΌnken et al., 2003) | |
| **Implementation:** | |
| ```python | |
| class CognitiveLoadEstimator: | |
| """ | |
| Estimates intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. | |
| """ | |
| def estimate_load(self, response_metrics: Dict) -> CognitiveLoad: | |
| return CognitiveLoad( | |
| intrinsic=self.concept_complexity(), # Topic difficulty | |
| extraneous=self.presentation_load(), # UI/format overhead | |
| germane=self.schema_construction(), # Productive learning | |
| # Zone of Proximal Development | |
| zpd_score=self.zpd_alignment(), # Too easy/hard/just right | |
| optimal_challenge=self.compute_optimal_difficulty() | |
| ) | |
| ``` | |
| **Visualization:** | |
| ``` | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| β COGNITIVE LOAD MONITOR β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ€ | |
| β Current Load: 67% (Optimal: 60-80%) β | |
| β β | |
| β Intrinsic ββββββββββββ 65% β | |
| β (concept complexity) β | |
| β β | |
| β Extraneous βββββββββββ 25% β | |
| β (presentation overhead) β | |
| β β | |
| β Germane ββββββββββββ 95% β | |
| β (productive learning) β | |
| β β | |
| β π Zone of Proximal Development β | |
| β Too Easy ββ[You]ββββββ Too Hard β | |
| β β | |
| β π‘ Recommendation: Increase difficulty β | |
| β from Level 3 β Level 4 β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| ``` | |
| --- | |
| ### 9. **Multimodal Learning** | |
| *Integrate vision, language, code, and more* | |
| #### π¨ Cross-Modal Reasoning | |
| **Papers:** | |
| - "CLIP: Learning Transferable Visual Models" (Radford et al., 2021) | |
| - "Flamingo: Visual Language Models" (Alayrac et al., 2022) | |
| - "GPT-4 Technical Report" (OpenAI, 2023) - multimodal capabilities | |
| **Implementation:** | |
| ``` | |
| Query: "Explain binary search with a diagram" | |
| Response: | |
| [Text] "Binary search repeatedly divides..." | |
| β | |
| [Code] def binary_search(arr, target): ... | |
| β | |
| [Diagram] | |
| [1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15] | |
| β | |
| [9,11,13,15] | |
| β | |
| [9,11] | |
| β | |
| [Animation] Step-by-step execution | |
| β | |
| [Interactive] Try your own example! | |
| Cross-Modal Attention: | |
| Text βββ0.87βββ Code | |
| Code βββ0.92βββ Diagram | |
| Diagram ββ0.78ββ Animation | |
| ``` | |
| **Features:** | |
| - LaTeX equation rendering | |
| - Mermaid diagram generation | |
| - Code execution sandbox | |
| - Interactive visualizations | |
| --- | |
| ### 10. **Direct Preference Optimization (DPO)** | |
| *Show alignment without reward models* | |
| #### π― Preference Learning Visualization | |
| **Papers:** | |
| - "Direct Preference Optimization" (Rafailov et al., 2023) | |
| - "RLHF: Training language models to follow instructions" (Ouyang et al., 2022) | |
| **Implementation:** | |
| ``` | |
| User Feedback: π or π on responses | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| β PREFERENCE LEARNING DASHBOARD β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ€ | |
| β Response A: "Quantum mechanics is..." β | |
| β Response B: "Let me explain quantum.." β | |
| β β | |
| β User Preferred: B (more engaging) β | |
| β β | |
| β Policy Update: β | |
| β Engagement β +15% β | |
| β Technical detail β -5% β | |
| β Simplicity β +20% β | |
| β β | |
| β Implicit Reward Model: β | |
| β r(B) - r(A) = +2.3 β | |
| β β | |
| β Learning Progress: β | |
| β Epoch 0 ββββββββββββββββββ 85% β | |
| β Converged after 142 preferences β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| ``` | |
| --- | |
| ## ποΈ Architecture Overview | |
| ``` | |
| ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| β USER INTERFACE β | |
| β ββββββββββββ ββββββββββββ ββββββββββββ β | |
| β β Chat UI β β Viz Panelβ β Controls β β | |
| β ββββββ¬ββββββ ββββββ¬ββββββ ββββββ¬ββββββ β | |
| βββββββββΌβββββββββββββΌβββββββββββββΌβββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| β β β | |
| βββββββββΌβββββββββββββΌβββββββββββββΌβββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| β COGNITIVE ORCHESTRATOR β | |
| β ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β | |
| β β β’ Query Understanding β β | |
| β β β’ Reasoning Strategy Selection β β | |
| β β β’ Multi-System Coordination β β | |
| β ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β | |
| ββββββββββββ¬βββββββββββββββ¬βββββββββββββββ¬βββββββββββββ | |
| β β β | |
| ββββββββΌββββ ββββββββΌββββ ββββββΌβββββββ | |
| β RAG β βKnowledge β βUncertaintyβ | |
| β Pipeline β β Graph β βQuantifier β | |
| ββββββββββββ ββββββββββββ βββββββββββββ | |
| β β β | |
| ββββββββΌβββββββββββββββΌβββββββββββββββΌββββββββ | |
| β LLM with Instrumentation β | |
| β β’ Attention tracking β | |
| β β’ Activation logging β | |
| β β’ Token probability capture β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| ``` | |
| --- | |
| ## π¨ UI/UX Design Principles | |
| ### Research Lab Aesthetic | |
| - **Dark theme** with syntax highlighting (like Jupyter/VSCode) | |
| - **Monospace fonts** for code and data | |
| - **Live metrics** updating in real-time | |
| - **Interactive plots** (Plotly/D3.js) | |
| - **Collapsible panels** for technical details | |
| - **Export options** (save visualizations, data, configs) | |
| ### Information Hierarchy | |
| ``` | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| β [Main Response] β Primary focus β | |
| β Clear, readable, large β | |
| β β | |
| β [Reasoning Visualization] β | |
| β β³ Expandable details β | |
| β β³ Interactive elements β | |
| β β | |
| β [Technical Metrics] β | |
| β β³ Confidence, uncertainty β | |
| β β³ Performance stats β | |
| β β | |
| β [Research Context] β | |
| β β³ Paper references β | |
| β β³ Related concepts β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| ``` | |
| --- | |
| ## π Data & Metrics to Track | |
| ### Learning Analytics | |
| - **Mastery progression** per concept | |
| - **Difficulty calibration** accuracy | |
| - **Engagement metrics** (time, interactions) | |
| - **Confusion signals** (repeated questions, clarifications) | |
| ### AI Performance Metrics | |
| - **Inference latency** (p50, p95, p99) | |
| - **Token usage** per query | |
| - **Cache hit rates** | |
| - **Retrieval precision/recall** | |
| - **Calibration error** (Expected Calibration Error) | |
| - **Hallucination rate** | |
| ### A/B Testing Framework | |
| - **Reasoning strategies** (ToT vs CoT vs ReAct) | |
| - **Explanation styles** (technical vs analogical) | |
| - **Interaction patterns** (Socratic vs direct) | |
| --- | |
| ## π¬ Experimental Features | |
| ### 1. **Research Playground** | |
| - **Compare models** side-by-side (GPT-4 vs Claude vs Llama) | |
| - **Ablation studies** (remove RAG, change prompts) | |
| - **Hyperparameter tuning** interface | |
| ### 2. **Dataset Explorer** | |
| - Browse training data examples | |
| - Show nearest neighbors in embedding space | |
| - Visualize data distribution | |
| ### 3. **Live Fine-Tuning** | |
| - User corrections improve model in real-time | |
| - Show gradient updates | |
| - Track loss curves | |
| --- | |
| ## π Paper References Dashboard | |
| Every feature should link to relevant papers: | |
| ``` | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| β π RESEARCH FOUNDATIONS β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ€ | |
| β This feature implements concepts from: β | |
| β β | |
| β [1] "Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate β | |
| β Problem Solving with Large β | |
| β Language Models" β | |
| β Yao et al., 2023 β | |
| β [PDF] [Code] [Cite] β | |
| β β | |
| β [2] "Self-Consistency Improves Chain β | |
| β of Thought Reasoning" β | |
| β Wang et al., 2022 β | |
| β [PDF] [Code] [Cite] β | |
| β β | |
| β π Implementation Faithfulness: 87% β | |
| βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ | |
| ``` | |
| --- | |
| ## π Implementation Priority | |
| ### Phase 1: Core Research Infrastructure (Week 1-2) | |
| 1. β Attention visualization | |
| 2. β RAG pipeline inspector | |
| 3. β Uncertainty quantification | |
| 4. β Paper reference system | |
| ### Phase 2: Advanced Reasoning (Week 3-4) | |
| 5. β Tree-of-Thoughts | |
| 6. β Knowledge graph | |
| 7. β Meta-learning adaptation | |
| 8. β Cognitive load estimation | |
| ### Phase 3: Safety & Alignment (Week 5) | |
| 9. β Constitutional AI | |
| 10. β Preference learning (DPO) | |
| 11. β Hallucination detection | |
| ### Phase 4: Polish & Deploy (Week 6) | |
| 12. β Multimodal support | |
| 13. β Research playground | |
| 14. β Documentation & demos | |
| --- | |
| ## π― Success Metrics | |
| ### For Research Positioning | |
| - β Cite 15+ recent papers (2020-2024) | |
| - β Implement 3+ state-of-the-art techniques | |
| - β Provide interactive visualizations for each | |
| - β Show rigorous evaluation metrics | |
| ### For User Engagement | |
| - β 10+ interactive research features | |
| - β Export-quality visualizations | |
| - β Developer-friendly API | |
| - β Reproducible experiments | |
| --- | |
| ## π‘ Unique Value Proposition | |
| **"The only AI tutor that shows its work at the research level"** | |
| - See actual attention patterns (not just outputs) | |
| - Understand retrieval and reasoning (not black box) | |
| - Track learning with cognitive science (not just analytics) | |
| - Reference cutting-edge papers (academic credibility) | |
| - Experiment with AI techniques (interactive research) | |
| This positions you as a **research lab** that: | |
| 1. Understands the latest AI/ML advances | |
| 2. Implements them rigorously | |
| 3. Makes them accessible and educational | |
| 4. Contributes to interpretability research | |
| --- | |
| **Next Steps:** Pick 2-3 features from Phase 1 to prototype first? | |