Vibe Modeling

Own the models you ship

Turn proprietary data into
a model you can ship.
Open models. Your infra. Your control.

Bring your data or describe the goal. Open-model candidates compete on held-out evidence; you get the artifact and a verdict you can verify: SHIP, NO SHIP, or USE BASE.

Try a 2-minute model →

ATTENTION · causal

weight value activation LoRA rails tokens attention heads

Weights, flow and links are illustrative. Every figure in the readouts is measured from the run. Click a plane to inspect it.

Recorded examples · target bin code

Drag or arrow keys to orbit · − / + to zoom · click a plane, or , and . to step through them

Two ways to start

Curious first? Teach a model a thing you own, in a minute →

Three recorded Builds · every figure is the run's own

Set the floor. Read the verdict.

Real data, held out. Candidates compete; the smallest one that clears your floor ships. Drag the floor and watch the decision change.

SHIP

    One real build · what a production-style Build looks like

    Set your gates.
    Read the verdict.

    The figures are the run’s own. The gates are yours: accuracy is judged on the Wilson lower bound, latency on p95, exactly as the engine does it. Remove the adapter and the verdict follows.

    Architecture from the pinned config · outputs recorded from the real run · the animation and miniature matrices are illustrative, not live inference.

    Inside causal attention

    Choose a query token to see which earlier tokens it can attend to. Change the text and watch the scores recompute.

    softmax(QKᵀ / √d)

    Computed teaching example: deterministic 4-dimensional vectors and whitespace tokens, not SmolVLM’s tokenizer, trained weights, or attention. Future tokens are masked before softmax; each row sums to 1.

    What the product is

    Your data becomes a model.
    Evidence decides what ships.

    Anyone can produce weights. The decision is the product. Type a goal and watch it become a contract:

      0 of 4 constraints stated

      Nothing you leave out gets invented.

      01

      Define what matters

      Data or a goal becomes a measurable task with typed constraints.

      02

      Establish the baseline

      No-training models land first. If one already passes, that is the answer.

      03

      Build competing candidates

      Frozen features, fine-tunes, adapters. The smallest one that clears the contract wins.

      04

      Evaluate on held-out evidence

      Disjoint splits, intervals, paired tests, latency measured where it runs.

      05

      Own what passes

      A checksummed artifact, its evidence, and an explicit verdict.

      Verify it yourself

      The evidence, one click away.

      Everything the hero shows is measured from one real run. The full record is here for anyone who wants to check it: the arm table with intervals, the gates, the reference harness, the recorded training replay, and what the system will and will not do.

      Open the build evidence — measured arms, gates, reference harness, training replay, build contract

      Measured

      A real model, on a real GPU

      The task is one nothing could have been pre-trained on: shelf photos answered with an arbitrary internal bin code. That is why a near-floor zero-shot is the expected result here, and why the delta means what a customer would get on their own data. Every figure below is generated from the run's own verdict.json.

      HuggingFaceTB/SmolVLM-500M-Instruct @ a7da5b986cb5 (apache-2.0) on NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090, torch 2.13.0+cu130 / CUDA 13.0
      ArmAccuracy 95% Wilsonn Lineage
      Zero-shot baseline 0.0% [0.0%, 3.8%] 96 measured
      Engineered-prompt baseline 0.0% [0.0%, 3.8%] 96 measured
      Adapted (LoRA) 11.5% [6.5%, 19.4%] 96 measured
      Adapted vs prompted baseline
      McNemar exact, p = 0.0009766 measured
      Envelope
      p50 99.3 ms, p95 103.2 ms, peak 2.62 GB, adapter 34.2 MB, measured on geforce-rtx-5090-34gb — the device that ran it measured
      Training
      179 s, 3.40 GB peak VRAM, 240 examples measured
      Evaluation data
      private — generated locally from a seed with a private answer vocabulary; the images did not exist before this run. A model guessing uniformly over the answer vocabulary would score 6.2%, which is what makes "near the floor" a number you can check
      Split integrity
      12 train scenes, 8 eval scenes, disjoint; 0 exact and 0 perceptual-hash collisions
      • evidencecomplete
      • significancep = 0.0010, adapted +11.46% vs B1 (engineered prompt)
      • slice regressionno regression across 4 slice(s)
      SHIP — 3 of 3 judged gates passed: evidence, significance, slice regression Not declared for this build, so not judged: accuracy floor, latency ceiling, memory ceiling, artifact size.

      Pipeline validation

      The same shape, on the reference harness

      A pipeline validation on a deterministic CPU harness — not a benchmark, not a real vision-language model, and not a customer result. It is here because the shape of the evidence is the point.

      Open the full arm table, significance, envelope and gates
      Build f7534abc — structured-evaluator 1.0.0, eval split 868cb284a22e
      ArmAccuracy 95% Wilsonn SeedsLineage
      Zero-shot baseline 6.1% [4.7%, 8.0%] 800 single run test_fixture
      Engineered-prompt baseline 15.2% [12.9%, 17.9%] 800 single run test_fixture
      Default LoRA 56.2% [54.2%, 58.1%] 800 3 seeds, 54.8%–56.9% test_fixture
      Planner-selected adaptation 55.2% [53.2%, 57.2%] 800 3 seeds, 53.9%–56.0% test_fixture
      Adapted vs prompted baseline
      McNemar exact, p < 1e-15 test_fixture
      Adapted vs default LoRA
      McNemar exact, p = 0.7561 — no planner advantage is claimed, and the fixture is built so it cannot encode one test_fixture
      Split integrity
      20 train scenes, 20 eval scenes, disjoint; 0 exact and 0 perceptual-hash collisions across splits
      Envelope
      p95 0.17 ms, peak memory 0.09 GB, artifact 2.10 MB, measured on cpu-local measured
      What this run is
      A pipeline validation on the deterministic reference harness, not a benchmark and not a real vision-language model. The accuracy figures are labelled test_fixture for that reason; the envelope figures are labelled measured because the latency and memory really were measured, on cpu-local and nothing else.

      What we are not claiming: that the planner beats a competent default recipe. The comparison above shows no such advantage, and the fixture is deliberately built so it cannot encode one. Whether planner-selected recipes beat default LoRA is an open research question with a written kill criterion; until it concludes, it stays off this page.

      Build contract

      What the system will and will not do

      Enforced in code and covered by tests, not stated as intentions.

      • 01
        Every number carries its lineage. There is one number renderer and it refuses to run without a label, so an unlabelled figure is unreachable rather than discouraged.
      • 02
        Significance is measured against the prompted baseline. Not the naive zero-shot one — that is the comparison that flatters a demo and means least. McNemar is two-sided, so the gate also requires the adapted arm to be ahead: a significant regression is never a SHIP.
      • 03
        Hardware is never extrapolated. Declare a Jetson, run on a workstation GPU, and the latency gate fails as evidence_incomplete rather than passing on the wrong evidence.
      • 04
        A gate that could not be checked is reported, not skipped. A must-not-regress slice that never appeared in the evaluation is a NO SHIP with a reason code, not a quiet pass.
      • 05
        Splits are scene-disjoint and leakage-gated. Hash collisions across train and eval block the build. A model that improves on every slice is usually a leaked split, so regressions are surfaced rather than filtered out.
      • 06
        Non-commercial weights are refused. The licence is verified at the pinned commit, before planning. Unknown is never assumed permissive.
      • 07
        Costs are reported or absent, never estimated into a result. No per-job billing from the backend means the cost is null. A guess is not an honest value.
      • 08
        Re-executable, not "reproducible". GPU nondeterminism makes bitwise reproduction unachievable, so we publish the run-to-run spread across seeds instead.
      Open the recorded training replay — architecture, loss, evaluation, verdict
      Vibe Modeling. vibemodeling.ai

      Look inside a Build · recorded run

      Look inside a Build.

      Want the model-engineering details? Inspect the architecture, adapter, attention, recorded training and evidence behind one real build — a vision-language model adapted in one real run. The flowing activations are illustrative.

      Scroll ↓ · drag the blocks
      01 / 07

      Ready to build on your data?

      Ready to build on your data?

      Start with a real team problem or explore the workflow with a quick prototype. Production deployments are currently available to selected design partners: tell us what you are trying to ship and what it has to run on. A person reads every one of these.

      No newsletter, no drip sequence, no countdown timer. If we are not a fit for what you are building, we will say so rather than keeping you in a funnel.