MISO: Model-Internal-State-Guided Optimization for Ranking Models

Ranking models are repeatedly refined within established model families, yet the choice of which component to scale, replace, or retire is often guided by expensive trial-and-error. We present Model Internal State Optimization (MISO), a systems workflow that uses model internal states (MIS), including parameters, activations, gradients, and normalization statistics, to prioritize such local optimization decisions. MISO extracts MIS from a trained ranking model, aggregates them into ranking, alignment, and comparison signals, and converts those signals into a small set of interpretable candidate edits. Because MIS are re-extracted after each retraining cycle, MISO naturally supports an adaptive optimization workflow that tracks evolving model behavior as data distributions and system requirements shift over time. In an ads ranking case study, MISO improves normalized entropy while requiring substantially fewer validation runs than expert-driven and black-box scaling workflows, offering a practical middle ground between manual tuning and opaque automated search.

Automating Low-Risk Code Review at Meta: RADAR, Risk Calibration, and Review Efficiency

AI-assisted coding tools have altered software production. At Meta, significant lines of code per human-landed diff grew by 105.9% year over year and per-developer diff volume rose 51%, with agentic AI responsible for over 80% of that growth. Meanwhile, the share of diffs receiving timely review has declined, exposing a widening gap between code supply and reviewer bandwidth. We ask three questions that progress from feasibility through calibration to impact: (1) can risk-stratified automation operate at scale across diverse organizations, (2) how does tuning the risk threshold affect the trade-off between automation yield and safety, and (3) to what extent does automated review reduce end-to-end latency for AI-generated changes? We deployed RADAR (Risk Aware Diff Auto Review), a multi-stage funnel that classifies each diff by authorship and source type, applies eligibility gates, static heuristics, a machine-learned Diff Risk Score, LLM-based Automated Code Review, and deterministic validation before landing qualifying changes. We evaluate RADAR through telemetry covering 535K+ RADAR-reviewed diffs, observational before-after comparisons for policy changes, and difference-in-differences analysis of efficiency outcomes. RADAR has reviewed 535K+ diffs and landed 331K+. Relaxing the Diff Risk Score threshold from the 25th to the 50th percentile increased the approve rate to 60.31%. The revert rate for RADAR-reviewed diffs is 1/3 that of non-RADAR diffs, and the Production Incident rate is 1/50 that of non-RADAR diffs. RADAR reduces median time to close by over 330% and median diff review wall time by 35%. Risk-aware layered automation can materially reduce review bottlenecks created by AI-driven code growth without compromising production safety.