Building a Smart Building HVAC Digital Twin with AI Copilot Using Foundry Local
Introduction Building operations teams face a constant challenge: optimizing HVAC systems for energy efficiency while maintaining occupant comfort and air quality. Traditional building management systems display raw sensor data, temperatures, pressures, CO₂ levels—but translating this into actionable insights requires deep HVAC expertise. What if operators could simply ask "Why is the third floor so warm?" and get an intelligent answer grounded in real building state? This article demonstrates building a sample smart building digital twin with an AI-powered operations copilot, implemented using DigitalTwin, React, Three.js, and Microsoft Foundry Local. You'll learn how to architect physics-based simulators that model thermal dynamics, implement 3D visualizations of building systems, integrate natural language AI control, and design fault injection systems for testing and training. Whether you're building IoT platforms for commercial real estate, designing energy management systems, or implementing predictive maintenance for building automation, this sample provides proven patterns for intelligent facility operations. Why Digital Twins Matter for Building Operations Physical buildings generate enormous operational data but lack intelligent interpretation layers. A 50,000 square foot office building might have 500+ sensors streaming metrics every minute, zone temperatures, humidity levels, equipment runtimes, energy consumption. Traditional BMS (Building Management Systems) visualize this data as charts and gauges, but operators must manually correlate patterns, diagnose issues, and predict failures. Digital twins solve this through physics-based simulation coupled with AI interpretation. Instead of just displaying current temperature readings, a digital twin models thermal dynamics, heat transfer rates, HVAC response characteristics, occupancy impacts. When conditions deviate from expectations, the twin compares observed versus predicted states, identifying root causes. Layer AI on top, and operators get natural language explanations: "The conference room is 3 degrees too warm because the VAV damper is stuck at 40% open, reducing airflow by 60%." This application focuses on HVAC, the largest building energy consumer, typically 40-50% of total usage. Optimizing HVAC by just 10% through better controls can save thousands of dollars monthly while improving occupant satisfaction. The digital twin enables "what-if" scenarios before making changes: "What happens to energy consumption and comfort if we raise the cooling setpoint by 2 degrees during peak demand response events?" Architecture: Three-Tier Digital Twin System The application implements a clean three-tier architecture separating visualization, simulation, and state management: The frontend uses React with Three.js for 3D visualization. Users see an interactive 3D model of the three-floor building with color-coded zones indicating temperature and CO₂ levels. Click any equipment, AHUs, VAVs, chillers, to see detailed telemetry. The control panel enables adjusting setpoints, running simulation steps, and activating demand response scenarios. Real-time charts display KPIs: energy consumption, comfort compliance, air quality levels. The backend Node.js/Express server orchestrates simulation and state management. It maintains the digital twin state as JSON, the single source of truth for all equipment, zones, and telemetry. REST API endpoints handle control requests, simulation steps, and AI copilot queries. WebSocket connections push real-time updates to the frontend for live monitoring. The HVAC simulator implements physics-based models: 1R1C thermal models for zones, affinity laws for fan power, chiller COP calculations, CO₂ mass balance equations. Foundry Local provides AI copilot capabilities. The backend uses foundry-local-sdk to query locally running models. Natural language queries ("How's the lobby temperature?") get answered with building state context. The copilot can explain anomalies, suggest optimizations, and even execute commands when explicitly requested. Implementing Physics-Based HVAC Simulation Accurate simulation requires modeling actual HVAC physics. The simulator implements several established building energy models: // backend/src/simulator/thermal-model.js class ZoneThermalModel { // 1R1C (one resistance, one capacitance) thermal model static calculateTemperatureChange(zone, delta_t_seconds) { const C_thermal = zone.volume * 1.2 * 1000; // Heat capacity (J/K) const R_thermal = zone.r_value * zone.envelope_area; // Thermal resistance // Internal heat gains (occupancy, equipment, lighting) const Q_internal = zone.occupancy * 100 + // 100W per person zone.equipment_load + zone.lighting_load; // Cooling/heating from HVAC const airflow_kg_s = zone.vav.airflow_cfm * 0.0004719; // CFM to kg/s const c_p_air = 1006; // Specific heat of air (J/kg·K) const Q_hvac = airflow_kg_s * c_p_air * (zone.vav.supply_temp - zone.temperature); // Envelope losses const Q_envelope = (zone.outdoor_temp - zone.temperature) / R_thermal; // Net energy balance const Q_net = Q_internal + Q_hvac + Q_envelope; // Temperature change: Q = C * dT/dt const dT = (Q_net / C_thermal) * delta_t_seconds; return zone.temperature + dT; } } This model captures essential thermal dynamics while remaining computationally fast enough for real-time simulation. It accounts for internal heat generation from occupants and equipment, HVAC cooling/heating contributions, and heat loss through the building envelope. The CO₂ model uses mass balance equations: class AirQualityModel { static calculateCO2Change(zone, delta_t_seconds) { // CO₂ generation from occupants const G_co2 = zone.occupancy * 0.0052; // L/s per person at rest // Outdoor air ventilation rate const V_oa = zone.vav.outdoor_air_cfm * 0.000471947; // CFM to m³/s // CO₂ concentration difference (indoor - outdoor) const delta_CO2 = zone.co2_ppm - 400; // Outdoor ~400ppm // Mass balance: dC/dt = (G - V*ΔC) / Volume const dCO2_dt = (G_co2 - V_oa * delta_CO2) / zone.volume; return zone.co2_ppm + (dCO2_dt * delta_t_seconds); } } These models execute every simulation step, updating the entire building state: async function simulateStep(twin, timestep_minutes) { const delta_t = timestep_minutes * 60; // Convert to seconds // Update each zone for (const zone of twin.zones) { zone.temperature = ZoneThermalModel.calculateTemperatureChange(zone, delta_t); zone.co2_ppm = AirQualityModel.calculateCO2Change(zone, delta_t); } // Update equipment based on zone demands for (const vav of twin.vavs) { updateVAVOperation(vav, twin.zones); } for (const ahu of twin.ahus) { updateAHUOperation(ahu, twin.vavs); } updateChillerOperation(twin.chiller, twin.ahus); updateBoilerOperation(twin.boiler, twin.ahus); // Calculate system KPIs twin.kpis = calculateSystemKPIs(twin); // Detect alerts twin.alerts = detectAnomalies(twin); // Persist updated state await saveTwinState(twin); return twin; } 3D Visualization with React and Three.js The frontend renders an interactive 3D building view that updates in real-time as conditions change. Using React Three Fiber simplifies Three.js integration with React's component model: // frontend/src/components/BuildingView3D.jsx import { Canvas } from '@react-three/fiber'; import { OrbitControls } from '@react-three/drei'; export function BuildingView3D({ twinState }) { return ( {/* Render building floors */} {twinState.zones.map(zone => ( selectZone(zone.id)} /> ))} {/* Render equipment */} {twinState.ahus.map(ahu => ( ))} ); } function ZoneMesh({ zone, onClick }) { const color = getTemperatureColor(zone.temperature, zone.setpoint); return ( ); } function getTemperatureColor(current, setpoint) { const deviation = current - setpoint; if (Math.abs(deviation) < 1) return '#00ff00'; // Green: comfortable if (Math.abs(deviation) < 3) return '#ffff00'; // Yellow: acceptable return '#ff0000'; // Red: uncomfortable } This visualization immediately shows building state at a glance, operators see "hot spots" in red, comfortable zones in green, and can click any area for detailed metrics. Integrating AI Copilot for Natural Language Control The AI copilot transforms building data into conversational insights. Instead of navigating multiple screens, operators simply ask questions: // backend/src/routes/copilot.js import { FoundryLocalClient } from 'foundry-local-sdk'; const foundry = new FoundryLocalClient({ endpoint: process.env.FOUNDRY_LOCAL_ENDPOINT }); router.post('/api/copilot/chat', async (req, res) => { const { message } = req.body; // Load current building state const twin = await loadTwinState(); // Build context for AI const context = buildBuildingContext(twin); const completion = await foundry.chat.completions.create({ model: 'phi-4', messages: [ { role: 'system', content: `You are an HVAC operations assistant for a 3-floor office building. Current Building State: ${context} Answer questions about equipment status, comfort conditions, and energy usage. Provide specific, actionable information based on the current data. Do not speculate beyond provided information.` }, { role: 'user', content: message } ], temperature: 0.3, max_tokens: 300 }); res.json({ response: completion.choices[0].message.content, model: 'phi-4', timestamp: new Date().toISOString() }); }); function buildBuildingContext(twin) { const alerts = twin.alerts.filter(a => a.active); const zoneStatus = twin.zones.map(z => `${z.name}: ${z.temperature.toFixed(1)}°F (setpoint: ${z.setpoint}°F), CO₂: ${z.co2_ppm}ppm, ${z.occupancy} people` ); return ` Zones: ${zoneStatus.join('\n')} Active Alerts: ${alerts.length} ${alerts.map(a => `- ${a.severity}: ${a.message}`).join('\n')} Energy: ${twin.kpis.total_power_kw.toFixed(1)} kW Chiller: ${twin.chiller.percent_load}% load, ${twin.chiller.cop.toFixed(2)} COP `.trim(); } Example interactions: User: "Why is the third floor conference room warm?" AI: "The Executive Suite on Floor 3 is currently 75.2°F, 3 degrees above the 72°F setpoint. This is due to high occupancy (8 people) and VAV-F3-EXEC operating at reduced airflow (285 CFM vs 450 CFM capacity). AHU-2 is supplying adequate cool air at 55°F. Recommend checking VAV damper position—it may be partially stuck." User: "What's our current energy usage?" AI: "Total building power consumption is 47.3 kW. Breakdown: Chiller (24.1 kW, 51%), AHU fans (12.8 kW, 27%), Pumps (7.2 kW, 15%), Other (3.2 kW, 7%). Chiller is operating at 62% load with a COP of 4.8, which is efficient for current conditions." User: "Activate demand response level 2" AI: "I cannot directly control building systems for safety reasons. To activate DR Level 2, use the Control Panel and click 'Demand Response' → 'Level 2'. This will raise cooling setpoints by 3°F and reduce auxiliary loads, targeting 15% energy reduction." The AI provides grounded, specific answers citing actual equipment IDs and metrics. It refuses to directly execute control commands, instead guiding operators to explicit control interfaces, a critical safety pattern for building systems. Fault Injection for Testing and Training Real building operations experience equipment failures, stuck dampers, sensor drift, communication losses. The digital twin includes comprehensive fault injection capabilities to train operators and test control logic: // backend/src/simulator/fault-injector.js const FAULT_CATALOG = { chillerFailure: { description: 'Chiller compressor failure', apply: (twin) => { twin.chiller.status = 'FAULT'; twin.chiller.cooling_output = 0; twin.alerts.push({ id: 'chiller-fault', severity: 'CRITICAL', message: 'Chiller compressor failure - no cooling available', equipment: 'CHILLER-01' }); } }, stuckVAVDamper: { description: 'VAV damper stuck at current position', apply: (twin, vavId) => { const vav = twin.vavs.find(v => v.id === vavId); vav.damper_stuck = true; vav.damper_position_fixed = vav.damper_position; twin.alerts.push({ id: `vav-stuck-${vavId}`, severity: 'HIGH', message: `VAV ${vavId} damper stuck at ${vav.damper_position}%`, equipment: vavId }); } }, sensorDrift: { description: 'Temperature sensor reading 5°F high', apply: (twin, zoneId) => { const zone = twin.zones.find(z => z.id === zoneId); zone.sensor_drift = 5.0; zone.temperature_measured = zone.temperature_actual + 5.0; } }, communicationLoss: { description: 'Equipment communication timeout', apply: (twin, equipmentId) => { const equipment = findEquipmentById(twin, equipmentId); equipment.comm_status = 'OFFLINE'; equipment.stale_data = true; twin.alerts.push({ id: `comm-loss-${equipmentId}`, severity: 'MEDIUM', message: `Lost communication with ${equipmentId}`, equipment: equipmentId }); } } }; router.post('/api/twin/fault', async (req, res) => { const { faultType, targetEquipment } = req.body; const twin = await loadTwinState(); const fault = FAULT_CATALOG[faultType]; if (!fault) { return res.status(400).json({ error: 'Unknown fault type' }); } fault.apply(twin, targetEquipment); await saveTwinState(twin); res.json({ message: `Applied fault: ${fault.description}`, affectedEquipment: targetEquipment, timestamp: new Date().toISOString() }); }); Operators can inject faults to practice diagnosis and response. Training scenarios might include: "The chiller just failed during a heat wave, how do you maintain comfort?" or "Multiple VAV dampers are stuck, which zones need immediate attention?" Key Takeaways and Production Deployment Building a physics-based digital twin with AI capabilities requires balancing simulation accuracy with computational performance, providing intuitive visualization while maintaining technical depth, and enabling AI assistance without compromising safety. Key architectural lessons: Physics models enable prediction: Comparing predicted vs observed behavior identifies anomalies that simple thresholds miss 3D visualization improves spatial understanding: Operators immediately see which floors or zones need attention AI copilots accelerate diagnosis: Natural language queries get answers in seconds vs. minutes of manual data examination Fault injection validates readiness: Testing failure scenarios prepares operators for real incidents JSON state enables integration: Simple file-based state makes connecting to real BMS systems straightforward For production deployment, connect the twin to actual building systems via BACnet, Modbus, or MQTT integrations. Replace simulated telemetry with real sensor streams. Calibrate model parameters against historical building performance. Implement continuous learning where the twin's predictions improve as it observes actual building behavior. The complete implementation with simulation engine, 3D visualization, AI copilot, and fault injection system is available at github.com/leestott/DigitalTwin. Clone the repository and run the startup scripts to explore the digital twin, no building hardware required. Resources and Further Reading Smart Building HVAC Digital Twin Repository - Complete source code and simulation engine Setup and Quick Start Guide - Installation instructions and usage examples Microsoft Foundry Local Documentation - AI integration reference HVAC Simulation Documentation - Physics model details and calibration Three.js Documentation - 3D visualization framework ASHRAE Standards - Building energy modeling standardsAgents League: Join the Reasoning Agents Track
In a previous blog post, we introduced Agents League, a two‑week AI agent challenge running February 16–27, and gave an overview of the three available tracks. In this post, we’ll zoom in on one of them in particular:🧠 The Reasoning Agents track, built on Microsoft Foundry. If you’re interested in multi‑step reasoning, planning, verification, and multi‑agent collaboration, this is the track designed for you. What Do We Mean by “Reasoning Agents”? Reasoning agents go beyond simple prompt–response interactions. They are agents that can: Plan how to approach a task Break problems into steps Reason across intermediate results Verify or critique their own outputs Collaborate with other agents to solve more complex problems With Microsoft Foundry (via UI or SDK) and/or the Microsoft Agent Framework, you can design agent systems that reflect real‑world decision‑making patterns—closer to how teams of humans work together. Why Build Reasoning Agents on Microsoft Foundry? Microsoft Foundry provides production‑ready building blocks for agentic systems, without locking you into a single way of working. For the Reasoning Agents track, Foundry enables you to: Define agent roles (planner, executor, verifier, critic, etc.) Orchestrate multi‑agent workflows Integrate tools, APIs, and MCP servers Apply structured reasoning patterns Observe and debug agent behavior as it runs You can work visually in the Foundry UI, programmatically via the SDK, or mix both approaches depending on your project. How to get started? Your first step to enter the arena is registering to the Agents League challenge: https://aka.ms/agentsleague/register. After you registered, navigate to the Reasoning Agent Starter Kit, to get more context about the challenge scenario, an example of multi-agent architecture to address it, along with some guidelines on the tech stack to use and useful resources to get started. There’s no single “correct” project, feel free to unleash your creativity and leverage AI-assisted development tools to accelerate your build process (e.g. GitHub Copilot). 👉 View the Reasoning Agents starter kit: https://github.com/microsoft/agentsleague/starter-kits Live Coding Battle: Reasoning Agents 📽️ Wednesday, Feb 18 – 9:00 AM PT During Week 1, we’re hosting a live coding battle dedicated entirely to the Reasoning Agents track. You’ll watch experienced developers from the community: Design agent architectures live Explain reasoning strategies and trade‑offs Make real‑time decisions about agent roles, tools, and flows The session is streamed on Microsoft Reactor and recorded, so you can watch it live (highly recommended for the best experience!) or later at your convenience. AMA Session on Discord 💬 Wednesday, Feb 25 – 9:00 AM PT In Week 2, it’s your turn to build—and ask questions. Join the Reasoning Agents AMA on Discord to: Ask about agent architecture and reasoning patterns Get clarification on Foundry capabilities Discuss MCP integration and multi‑agent design Get unstuck when your agent doesn’t behave as expected Prizes, Badges, and Recognition 🏆 $500 for the Reasoning Agents track winner 🎖️ Digital badge for everyone who registers and submits a project Important reminder: 👉 You must register before submitting to be eligible for prizes and the badge. Beyond the rewards, every participant receives feedback from Microsoft product teams, which is often the most valuable prize of all. Ready to Build Agents That Reason? If you’ve been curious about: Agentic architectures Multi‑step reasoning Verification and self‑reflection Building AI systems that explain their thinking …then the Reasoning Agents track is your arena. 📝 Register here: https://aka.ms/agentsleague/register 💬 Join Discord: https://aka.ms/agentsleague/discord 📽️ Watch live battles: https://aka.ms/agentsleague/battles The league starts February 16. The reasoning begins now.Agents League: Two Weeks, Three Tracks, One Challenge
We're inviting all developers to join Agents League, running February 16-27. It's a two-week challenge where you'll build AI agents using production-ready tools, learn from live coding sessions, and get feedback directly from Microsoft product teams. We've put together starter kits for each track to help you get up and running quickly that also includes requirements and guidelines. Whether you want to explore what GitHub Copilot can do beyond autocomplete, build reasoning agents on Microsoft Foundry, or create enterprise integrations for Microsoft 365 Copilot, we have a track for you. Important: Register first to be eligible for prizes and your digital badge. Without registration, you won't qualify for awards or receive a badge when you submit. What Is Agents League? It's a 2-week competition that combines learning with building: 📽️ Live coding battles – Watch Product teams, MVPs and community members tackle challenges in real-time on Microsoft Reactor 💻 Async challenges – Build at your own pace, on your schedule 💬 Discord community – Connect with other participants, join AMAs, and get help when you need it 🏆 Prizes – $500 per track winner, plus GitHub Copilot Pro subscriptions for top picks The Three Tracks 🎨 Creative Apps — Build with GitHub Copilot (Chat, CLI, or SDK) 🧠 Reasoning Agents — Build with Microsoft Foundry 💼 Enterprise Agents — Build with M365 Agents Toolkit (or Copilot Studio) More details on each track below, or jump straight to the starter kits. The Schedule Agents League starts on February 16th and runs through Feburary 27th. Within 2 weeks, we host live battles on Reactor and AMA sessions on Discord. Week 1: Live Battles (Feb 17-19) We're kicking off with live coding battles streamed on Microsoft Reactor. Watch experienced developers compete in real-time, explaining their approach and architectural decisions as they go. Tue Feb 17, 9 AM PT — 🎨 Creative Apps battle Wed Feb 18, 9 AM PT — 🧠 Reasoning Agents battle Thu Feb 19, 9 AM PT — 💼 Enterprise Agents battle All sessions are recorded, so you can watch on your own schedule. Week 2: Build + AMAs (Feb 24-26) This is your time to build and ask questions on Discord. The async format means you work when it suits you, evenings, weekends, whatever fits your schedule. We're also hosting AMAs on Discord where you can ask questions directly to Microsoft experts and product teams: Tue Feb 24, 9 AM PT — 🎨 Creative Apps AMA Wed Feb 25, 9 AM PT — 🧠 Reasoning Agents AMA Thu Feb 26, 9 AM PT — 💼 Enterprise Agents AMA Bring your questions, get help when you're stuck, and share what you're building with the community. Pick Your Track We've created a starter kit for each track with setup guides, project ideas, and example scenarios to help you get started quickly. 🎨 Creative Apps Tool: GitHub Copilot (Chat, CLI, or SDK) Build innovative, imaginative applications that showcase the potential of AI-assisted development. All application types are welcome, web apps, CLI tools, games, mobile apps, desktop applications, and more. The starter kit walks you through GitHub Copilot's different modes and provides prompting tips to get the best results. View the Creative Apps starter kit. 🧠 Reasoning Agents Tool: Microsoft Foundry (UI or SDK) and/or Microsoft Agent Framework Build a multi-agent system that leverages advanced reasoning capabilities to solve complex problems. This track focuses on agents that can plan, reason through multi-step problems, and collaborate. The starter kit includes architecture patterns, reasoning strategies (planner-executor, critic/verifier, self-reflection), and integration guides for tools and MCP servers. View the Reasoning Agents starter kit. 💼 Enterprise Agents Tool: M365 Agents Toolkit or Copilot Studio Create intelligent agents that extend Microsoft 365 Copilot to address real-world enterprise scenarios. Your agent must work on Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat. Bonus points for: MCP server integration, OAuth security, Adaptive Cards UI, connected agents (multi-agent architecture). View the Enterprise Agents starter kit. Prizes & Recognition To be eligible for prizes and your digital badge, you must register before submitting your project. Category Winners ($500 each): 🎨 Creative Apps winner 🧠 Reasoning Agents winner 💼 Enterprise Agents winner GitHub Copilot Pro subscriptions: Community Favorite (voted by participants on Discord) Product Team Picks (selected by Microsoft product teams) Everyone who registers and submits a project wins: A digital badge to showcase their participation. Beyond the prizes, every participant gets feedback from the teams who built these tools, a valuable opportunity to learn and improve your approach to AI agent development. How to Get Started Register first — This is required to be eligible for prizes and to receive your digital badge. Without registration, your submission won't qualify for awards or a badge. Pick a track — Choose one track. Explore the starter kits to help you decide. Watch the battles — See how experienced developers approach these challenges. Great for learning even if you're still deciding whether to compete. Build your project — You have until Feb 27. Work on your own schedule. Submit via GitHub — Open an issue using the project submission template. Join us on Discord — Get help, share your progress, and vote for your favorite projects on Discord. Links Register: https://aka.ms/agentsleague/register Starter Kits: https://github.com/microsoft/agentsleague/starter-kits Discord: https://aka.ms/agentsleague/discord Live Battles: https://aka.ms/agentsleague/battles Submit Project: Project submission templateAlphaLife Sciences powers regulatory-compliant AI workflows with PostgreSQL on Azure
by: Maxim Lukiyanov, PhD, Principal PM Manager and Sharon Chen, CEO and Founder at AlphaLife Sciences In life sciences, every document is deeply interconnected and highly regulated. Each clinical trial, regulatory submission, safety report, or protocol amendment is expected to stand up to rigorous audit. For AlphaLife Sciences, that challenge became an opportunity to rethink how AI could support expert human judgment. At Microsoft Ignite, AlphaLife Sciences CEO and Founder Sharon Chen shared how her team is building an AI-powered content authoring platform on top of Azure Database for PostgreSQL, designed specifically for the demands of regulated life sciences workflows. She also explained why the team is excited about Azure HorizonDB as a new PostgreSQL service that is built to meet the needs of modern enterprise workloads. This post explores how AlphaLife Sciences uses PostgreSQL as more than a data store. It’s a semantic foundation for compliant, auditable AI agents. Bringing AI into regulated workflows Life sciences organizations are under constant pressure. R&D pipelines are growing and patent windows are shrinking. A single clinical study report can take six months or more to complete, involving multiple teams and hundreds of source documents. Building efficiency into these processes is critical, but only if it doesn’t compromise accuracy, traceability, or compliance. That’s where many AI solutions fall short. Generating text is one thing, but generating verifiable, version-controlled, regulation-aware content is another. AlphaLife Sciences needed agents that could: Work across massive volumes of structured and unstructured data (Word, PDF, Excel, PowerPoint) Maintain full traceability from generated content back to source documents Support audits, amendments, and regulatory review Minimize hallucinations in a zero-tolerance environment Integrate naturally into the tools writers already use Bringing data, search, and AI together in one system At the core of AlphaLife Sciences’ platform is Azure Database for PostgreSQL. The team chose it for flexibility, extensibility, and for how well it supports modern AI workloads. Instead of stitching together separate systems for SQL queries, vector search, text indexing, and metadata tracking, AlphaLife Sciences consolidated everything into PostgreSQL. One of its flagship use cases is clinical trial protocol authoring, a process that typically involves: Designing trial objectives and endpoints Pulling references from previous studies Writing and revising hundreds of pages of structured content Managing multiple rounds of amendments and regulatory feedback With AI agents backed by PostgreSQL, that workflow changes dramatically. When a writer generates a protocol section, the system can automatically retrieve relevant references from a centralized document pool, using semantic search rather than manual lookup. Writers select the sources they want, apply rules or prompts, and let AI draft the section - complete with citations tied back to the original documents. Reviewers can inspect the source, adjust the output, or insert it directly into the document. For protocol amendments, the platform allows teams to upload inputs (Word or Excel), analyze which sections are affected, and generate structured suggestions. Changes are clearly highlighted, compared against previous versions, and summarized in amendment tables. AI agents that respect the rules A recurring theme in Chen’s talk was restraint. “We don’t just need AI that can write,” she said. “We need intelligent agents that understand data structures, follow regulatory laws, and manage version control.” This is where PostgreSQL-backed AI agents shine. By grounding AI behavior in structured schemas, controlled access, and auditable records, automation works hand-in-hand with human experts. AI accelerates first drafts, consistency checks, discrepancy detection, and cross-document analysis, but final accountability stays firmly with professionals. In some cases, the time to complete processes has been reduced by more than 50%. Azure Database for PostgreSQL has become more than a database for AlphaLife Sciences. It’s a semantic knowledge base that supports: Structured and unstructured data Vector similarity search Metadata-driven traceability Compliance, security, and auditability AI agents operating safely inside enterprise constraints By grounding AI agents directly in the database, reasoning, retrieval, and generation all operate against the same governed source of truth. “AI agents are not here to replace human beings,” said Chen. “They extend structured, compliant, and auditable thinking.” What’s next for AlphaLife Sciences with PostgreSQL on Azure Looking ahead, Chen shared her excitement about Azure HorizonDB and the capabilities it brings to PostgreSQL on Azure. Features like in-database AI model management, semantic operators for classification and summarization, and faster vector search with DiskANN align closely with AlphaLife Sciences’ needs as their platform continues to scale. “We’re extremely happy to see the launch of Azure HorizonDB and the more powerful tools coming with it,” Chen said. “By putting everything together in PostgreSQL, we don’t have to rely on different systems for vector search, text indexing, or SQL queries. Everything happens in one streamlined system. The code becomes cleaner, efficiency improves, and the AI agents perform much more elegantly.” Learn more AlphaLife Sciences’ journey was featured during the Microsoft Ignite session “The Blueprint for Intelligent AI Agents Backed by PostgreSQL.” Watch the session to learn more and see a demo of how Azure Database for PostgreSQL transforms the protocol and protocol amendment process. When AI is anchored in a strong PostgreSQL foundation, innovation and compliance don’t have to compete - they can reinforce each other.Rethinking Documentation Translation: Treating Translations as Versioned Software Assets
Rethinking Documentation Translation: Treating Translations as Versioned Software Assets This article is written from the perspective of maintaining large, open-source documentation repositories in the Microsoft ecosystem. I am the maintainer of Co-op Translator, an open-source tool for automating multilingual documentation translation, used across multiple large documentation repositories, including Microsoft’s For Beginners series. In large documentation repositories, translation problems rarely fail loudly. They fail quietly, and they accumulate over time. Recently, we made a fundamental design decision in how Co-op Translator handles translations. Translations are treated as versioned software assets, not static outputs. This article explains why we reached that conclusion, and what this perspective enables for teams maintaining large, fast-moving documentation repositories. When translations quietly become a liability In most documentation projects, translations are treated as finished outputs. Once a file is translated, it is assumed to remain valid until someone explicitly notices a problem. But documentation rarely stands still. Text changes. Code examples evolve. Screenshots are replaced. Notebooks are updated to reflect new behavior. The problem is that these changes are often invisible in translated content. A translation may still read fluently, while the information it contains is already out of date. At that point, the issue is no longer about translation quality. It becomes a maintenance problem. Reframing the question Most translation workflows implicitly ask: Is this translation correct? In practice, maintainers struggle with a different question: Is this translation still synchronized with the current source? This distinction matters. A translation can be correct and still be out of sync. Once we acknowledged this, it became clear that treating translations as static content was no longer sufficient. The design decision: translations as versioned assets Starting with Co-op Translator 0.16.2, we made a deliberate design decision: Translations are treated as versioned software assets. This applies not only to Markdown files, but also to images, notebooks, and any other translated artifacts. Translated content is not just text. It is an artifact generated from a specific version of a source. To make this abstraction operational rather than theoretical, we did not invent a new mechanism. Instead, we looked to systems that already solve a similar problem: pip, poetry, and npm. These tools are designed to track artifacts as their sources evolve. We applied the same thinking to translated content. Closer to dependency management than translation jobs The closest analogy is software dependency management. When a dependency becomes outdated: it is not suddenly “wrong,” it is simply no longer aligned with the current version. Translations behave the same way. When the source document changes: the translated file does not immediately become incorrect, it becomes out of sync with its source version. This framing shifts the problem away from translation output and toward state and synchronization. Why file-level versioning matters Many translation systems operate at the string or segment level. That model works well for UI text and relatively stable resources. Documentation is different. A Markdown file is an artifact. A screenshot is an artifact. A notebook is an artifact. They are consumed as units, not as isolated strings. Managing translation state at the file level allows maintainers to reason about translations using the same mental model they already apply to other repository assets. What changed in practice From embedded markers to explicit state Previously, translation metadata lived inside translated files as embedded comments or markers. This approach had clear limitations: translation state was fragmented, difficult to inspect globally, and easy to miss as repositories grew. We moved to language-scoped JSON state files that explicitly track: the source version, the translated artifact, and its synchronization status. Translation state is no longer hidden inside content. It is a first-class, inspectable part of the repository. Extending the model to images and notebooks The same model now applies consistently to: translated images, localized notebooks, and other non-text artifacts. If an image changes in the source language, the translated image becomes out of sync. If a notebook is updated, its translated versions are evaluated against the new source version. The format does not matter. The lifecycle does. Once translations are treated as versioned assets, the system remains consistent across all content types. What this enables This design enables: Explicit drift detection See which translations are out of sync without guessing. Consistent maintenance signals Text, images, and notebooks follow the same rules. Clear responsibility boundaries The system reports state. Humans decide action. Scalability for fast-moving repositories Translation maintenance becomes observable, not reactive. In large documentation sets, this difference determines whether translation maintenance is sustainable at all. What this is not This system does not: judge translation quality, determine semantic correctness, or auto-approve content. It answers one question only: Is this translated artifact synchronized with its source version? Who this is for This approach is designed for teams that: maintain multilingual documentation, update content frequently, and need confidence in what is actually up to date. When documentation evolves faster than translations, treating translations as versioned assets becomes a necessity, not an optimization. Closing thought Once translations are modeled as software assets, long-standing ambiguities disappear. State becomes visible. Maintenance becomes manageable. And translations fit naturally into existing software workflows. At that point, the question is no longer whether translation drift exists, but: Can you see it? Reference Co-op Translator repository https://github.com/Azure/co-op-translatorHow to Build Safe Natural Language-Driven APIs
TL;DR Building production natural language APIs requires separating semantic parsing from execution. Use LLMs to translate user text into canonical structured requests (via schemas), then execute those requests deterministically. Key patterns: schema completion for clarification, confidence gates to prevent silent failures, code-based ontologies for normalization, and an orchestration layer. This keeps language as input, not as your API contract. Introduction APIs that accept natural language as input are quickly becoming the norm in the age of agentic AI apps and LLMs. From search and recommendations to workflows and automation, users increasingly expect to "just ask" and get results. But treating natural language as an API contract introduces serious risks in production systems: Nondeterministic behavior Prompt-driven business logic Difficult debugging and replay Silent failures that are hard to detect In this post, I'll describe a production-grade architecture for building safe, natural language-driven APIs: one that embraces LLMs for intent discovery and entity extraction while preserving the determinism, observability, and reliability that backend systems require. This approach is based on building real systems using Azure OpenAI and LangGraph, and on lessons learned the hard way. The Core Problem with Natural Language APIs Natural language is an excellent interface for humans. It is a poor interface for systems. When APIs accept raw text directly and execute logic based on it, several problems emerge: The API contract becomes implicit and unversioned Small prompt changes cause behavioral changes Business logic quietly migrates into prompts In short: language becomes the contract, and that's fragile. The solution is not to avoid natural language, but to contain it. A Key Principle: Natural Language Is Input, Not a Contract So how do we contain it? The answer lies in treating natural language fundamentally differently than we treat traditional API inputs. The most important design decision we made was this: Natural language should be translated into structure, not executed directly. That single principle drives the entire architecture. Instead of building "chatty APIs," we split responsibilities clearly: Natural language is used for intent discovery and entity extraction Structured data is used for execution Two Explicit API Layers This principle translates into a concrete architecture with two distinct API layers, each with a single, clear responsibility. 1. Semantic Parse API (Natural Language → Structure) This API: Accepts user text Extracts intent and entities using LLMs Completes a predefined schema Asks clarifying questions when required Returns a canonical, structured request Does not execute business logic Think of this as a compiler, not an engine. 2. Structured Execution API (Structure → Action) This API: Accepts only structured input Calls downstream systems to process the request and get results Is deterministic and versioned Contains no natural language handling Is fully testable and replayable This is where execution happens. Why This Separation Matters Separating these layers gives you: A stable, versionable API contract Freedom to improve NLP without breaking clients Clear ownership boundaries Deterministic execution paths Most importantly, it prevents LLM behavior from leaking into core business logic. Canonical Schemas Are the Backbone Now that we've established the two-layer architecture, let's dive into what makes it work: canonical schemas. Each supported intent is defined by a canonical schema that lives in code. Example (simplified): This schema is used when a user is looking for similar product recommendations. The entities capture which product to use as reference and how to bias the recommendations toward price or quality. { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": "string", "price_bias": "number (-1 to 1)", "quality_bias": "number (-1 to 1)" } } Schemas define: Required vs optional fields Allowed ranges and types Validation rules They are the contract, not the prompt. When a user says "show me products like the blue backpack but cheaper", the LLM extracts: Intent: recommend_similar reference_product_id: "blue_backpack_123" price_bias: -0.8 (strongly prefer cheaper) quality_bias: 0.0 (neutral) The schema ensures that even if the user phrased it as "find alternatives to item 123 with better pricing" or "cheaper versions of that blue bag", the output is always the same structure. The natural language variation is absorbed at the semantic layer. The execution layer receives a consistent, validated request every time. This decoupling is what makes the system maintainable. Schema Completion, Not Free-Form Chat But what happens when the user's input doesn't contain all the information needed to complete the schema? This is where structured clarification comes in. A common misconception is that clarification means "chatting until it feels right." In production systems, clarification is schema completion. If required fields are missing or ambiguous, the semantic API responds with: What information is missing A targeted clarification question The current schema state Example response: { "status": "needs_clarification", "missing_fields": ["reference_product_id"], "question": "Which product should I compare against?", "state": { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": null, "price_bias": -0.3, "quality_bias": 0.4 } } } The state object is the memory. The API itself remains stateless. A Complete Conversation Flow To illustrate how schema completion works in practice, here's a full conversation flow where the user's initial request is missing required information: Initial Request: User: "Show me cheaper alternatives with good quality" API Response (needs clarification): { "status": "needs_clarification", "missing_fields": ["reference_product_id"], "question": "Which product should I compare against?", "state": { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": null, "price_bias": -0.3, "quality_bias": 0.4 } } } Follow-up Request: User: "The blue backpack" Client sends: { "user_input": "The blue backpack", "state": { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": null, "price_bias": -0.3, "quality_bias": 0.4 } } } API Response (complete): { "status": "complete", "canonical_request": { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": "blue_backpack_123", "price_bias": -0.3, "quality_bias": 0.4 } } } The client passes the state back with each clarification. The API remains stateless, while the client manages the conversation context. Once complete, the canonical_request can be sent directly to the execution API. Why LangGraph Fits This Problem Perfectly With schemas and clarification flows defined, we need a way to orchestrate the semantic parsing workflow reliably. This is where LangGraph becomes valuable. LangGraph allows semantic parsing to be modeled as a structured, deterministic workflow with explicit decision points: Classify intent: Determine what the user wants to do from a predefined set of supported actions Extract candidate entities: Pull out relevant parameters from the natural language input using the LLM Merge into schema state: Map the extracted values into the canonical schema structure Validate required fields: Check if all mandatory fields are present and values are within acceptable ranges Either complete or request clarification: Return the canonical request if complete, or ask a targeted question if information is missing Each node has a single responsibility. Validation and routing are done in code, not by the LLM. LangGraph provides: Explicit state transitions Deterministic routing Observable execution Safe retries Used this way, it becomes a powerful orchestration tool, not a conversational agent. Confidence Gates Prevent Silent Failures Structured workflows handle the process, but there's another critical safety mechanism we need: knowing when the LLM isn't confident about its extraction. Even when outputs are structurally valid, they may not be reliable. We require the semantic layer to emit a confidence score. If confidence falls below a threshold, execution is blocked and clarification is requested. This simple rule eliminates an entire class of silent misinterpretations that are otherwise very hard to detect. Example: When a user says "Show me items similar to the bag", the LLM might extract: { "intent": "recommend_similar", "confidence": 0.55, "entities": { "reference_product_id": "generic_bag_001", "confidence_scores": { "reference_product_id": 0.4 } } } The overall confidence is low (0.55), and the entity confidence for reference_product_id is very low (0.4) because "the bag" is ambiguous. There might be hundreds of bags in the catalog. Instead of proceeding with a potentially wrong guess, the API responds: { "status": "needs_clarification", "reason": "low_confidence", "question": "I found multiple bags. Did you mean the blue backpack, the leather tote, or the travel duffel?", "confidence": 0.55 } This prevents the system from silently executing the wrong recommendation and provides a better user experience. Lightweight Ontologies (Keep Them in Code) Beyond confidence scoring, we need a way to normalize the variety of terms users might use into consistent canonical values. We also introduced lightweight, code-level ontologies: Allowed intents Required entities per intent Synonym-to-canonical mappings Cross-field validation rules These live in code and configuration, not in prompts. LLMs propose values. Code enforces meaning. Example: Consider these user inputs that all mean the same thing: "Show me cheaper options" "Find budget-friendly alternatives" "I want something more affordable" "Give me lower-priced items" The LLM might extract different values: "cheaper", "budget-friendly", "affordable", "lower-priced". The ontology maps all of these to a canonical value: PRICE_BIAS_SYNONYMS = { "cheaper": -0.7, "budget-friendly": -0.7, "affordable": -0.7, "lower-priced": -0.7, "expensive": 0.7, "premium": 0.7, "high-end": 0.7 } When the LLM extracts "budget-friendly", the code normalizes it to -0.7 for the price_bias field. Similarly, cross-field validation catches logical inconsistencies: if entities["price_bias"] < -0.5 and entities["quality_bias"] > 0.5: return clarification("You want cheaper items with higher quality. This might be difficult. Should I prioritize price or quality?") The LLM proposes. The ontology normalizes. The validation enforces business rules. What About Latency? A common concern with multi-step semantic parsing is performance. In practice, we observed: Intent classification: ~40 ms Entity extraction: ~200 ms Validation and routing: ~1 ms Total overhead: ~250–300 ms. For chat-driven user experiences, this is well within acceptable bounds and far cheaper than incorrect or inconsistent execution. Key Takeaways Let's bring it all together. If you're building APIs that accept natural language in production: Do not make language your API contract Translate language into canonical structure Own schema completion server-side Use LLMs for discovery and extraction, not execution Treat safety and determinism as first-class requirements Natural language is an input format. Structure is the contract. Closing Thoughts LLMs make it easy to build impressive demos. Building safe, reliable systems with them requires discipline. By separating semantic interpretation from execution, and by using tools like Azure OpenAI and LangGraph thoughtfully, you can build natural language-driven APIs that scale, evolve, and behave predictably in production. Hopefully, this architecture saves you a few painful iterations.Benchmarking Local AI Models
Introduction Selecting the right AI model for your application requires more than reading benchmark leaderboards. Published benchmarks measure academic capabilities, question answering, reasoning, coding, but your application has specific requirements: latency budgets, hardware constraints, quality thresholds. How do you know if Phi-4 provides acceptable quality for your document summarization use case? Will Qwen2.5-0.5B meet your 100ms response time requirement? Does your edge device have sufficient memory for Phi-3.5 Mini? The answer lies in empirical testing: running actual models on your hardware with your workload patterns. This article demonstrates building a comprehensive model benchmarking platform using FLPerformance, Node.js, React, and Microsoft Foundry Local. You'll learn how to implement scientific performance measurement, design meaningful benchmark suites, visualize multi-dimensional comparisons, and make data-driven model selection decisions. Whether you're evaluating models for production deployment, optimizing inference costs, or validating hardware specifications, this platform provides the tools for rigorous performance analysis. Why Model Benchmarking Requires Purpose-Built Tools You cannot assess model performance by running a few manual tests and noting the results. Scientific benchmarking demands controlled conditions, statistically significant sample sizes, multi-dimensional metrics, and reproducible methodology. Understand why purpose-built tooling is essential. Performance is multi-dimensional. A model might excel at throughput (tokens per second) but suffer at latency (time to first token). Another might generate high-quality outputs slowly. Your application might prioritize consistency over average performance, a model with variable response times (high p95/p99 latency) creates poor user experiences even if averages look good. Measuring all dimensions simultaneously enables informed tradeoffs. Hardware matters enormously. Benchmark results from NVIDIA A100 GPUs don't predict performance on consumer laptops. NPU acceleration changes the picture again. Memory constraints affect which models can even load. Test on your actual deployment hardware or comparable specifications to get actionable results. Concurrency reveals bottlenecks. A model handling one request excellently might struggle with ten concurrent requests. Real applications experience variable load, measuring only single-threaded performance misses critical scalability constraints. Controlled concurrency testing reveals these limits. Statistical rigor prevents false conclusions. Running a prompt once and noting the response time tells you nothing about performance distribution. Was this result typical? An outlier? You need dozens or hundreds of trials to establish p50/p95/p99 percentiles, understand variance, and detect stability issues. Comparison requires controlled experiments. Different prompts, different times of day, different system loads, all introduce confounding variables. Scientific comparison runs identical workloads across models sequentially, controlling for external factors. Architecture: Three-Layer Performance Testing Platform FLPerformance implements a clean separation between orchestration, measurement, and presentation: The frontend React application provides model management, benchmark configuration, test execution, and results visualization. Users add models from the Foundry Local catalog, configure benchmark parameters (iterations, concurrency, timeout values), launch test runs, and view real-time progress. The results dashboard displays comparison tables, latency distribution charts, throughput graphs, and "best model for..." recommendations. The backend Node.js/Express server orchestrates tests and captures metrics. It manages the single Foundry Local service instance, loads/unloads models as needed, executes benchmark suites with controlled concurrency, measures comprehensive metrics (TTFT, TPOT, total latency, throughput, error rates), and persists results to JSON storage. WebSocket connections provide real-time progress updates during long benchmark runs. Foundry Local SDK integration uses the official foundry-local-sdk npm package. The SDK manages service lifecycle, starting, stopping, health checkin, and handles model operations, downloading, loading into memory, unloading. It provides OpenAI-compatible inference APIs for consistent request formatting across models. The architecture supports simultaneous testing of multiple models by loading them one at a time, running identical benchmarks, and aggregating results for comparison: User Initiates Benchmark Run ↓ Backend receives {models: [...], suite: "default", iterations: 10} ↓ For each model: 1. Load model into Foundry Local 2. Execute benchmark suite - For each prompt in suite: * Run N iterations * Measure TTFT, TPOT, total time * Track errors and timeouts * Calculate tokens/second 3. Aggregate statistics (mean, p50, p95, p99) 4. Unload model ↓ Store results with metadata ↓ Return comparison data to frontend ↓ Visualize performance metrics Implementing Scientific Measurement Infrastructure Accurate performance measurement requires instrumentation that captures multiple dimensions without introducing measurement overhead: // src/server/benchmark.js import { performance } from 'perf_hooks'; export class BenchmarkExecutor { constructor(foundryClient, options = {}) { this.client = foundryClient; this.options = { iterations: options.iterations || 10, concurrency: options.concurrency || 1, timeout_ms: options.timeout_ms || 30000, warmup_iterations: options.warmup_iterations || 2 }; } async runBenchmarkSuite(modelId, prompts) { const results = []; // Warmup phase (exclude from results) console.log(`Running ${this.options.warmup_iterations} warmup iterations...`); for (let i = 0; i < this.options.warmup_iterations; i++) { await this.executePrompt(modelId, prompts[0].text); } // Actual benchmark runs for (const prompt of prompts) { console.log(`Benchmarking prompt: ${prompt.id}`); const measurements = []; for (let i = 0; i < this.options.iterations; i++) { const measurement = await this.executeMeasuredPrompt( modelId, prompt.text ); measurements.push(measurement); // Small delay between iterations to stabilize await sleep(100); } results.push({ prompt_id: prompt.id, prompt_text: prompt.text, measurements, statistics: this.calculateStatistics(measurements) }); } return { model_id: modelId, timestamp: new Date().toISOString(), config: this.options, results }; } async executeMeasuredPrompt(modelId, promptText) { const measurement = { success: false, error: null, ttft_ms: null, // Time to first token tpot_ms: null, // Time per output token total_ms: null, tokens_generated: 0, tokens_per_second: 0 }; try { const startTime = performance.now(); let firstTokenTime = null; let tokenCount = 0; // Streaming completion to measure TTFT const stream = await this.client.chat.completions.create({ model: modelId, messages: [{ role: 'user', content: promptText }], max_tokens: 200, temperature: 0.7, stream: true }); for await (const chunk of stream) { if (chunk.choices[0]?.delta?.content) { if (firstTokenTime === null) { firstTokenTime = performance.now(); measurement.ttft_ms = firstTokenTime - startTime; } tokenCount++; } } const endTime = performance.now(); measurement.total_ms = endTime - startTime; measurement.tokens_generated = tokenCount; if (tokenCount > 1 && firstTokenTime) { // TPOT = time after first token / (tokens - 1) const timeAfterFirstToken = endTime - firstTokenTime; measurement.tpot_ms = timeAfterFirstToken / (tokenCount - 1); measurement.tokens_per_second = 1000 / measurement.tpot_ms; } measurement.success = true; } catch (error) { measurement.error = error.message; measurement.success = false; } return measurement; } calculateStatistics(measurements) { const successful = measurements.filter(m => m.success); const total = measurements.length; if (successful.length === 0) { return { success_rate: 0, error_rate: 1.0, sample_size: total }; } const ttfts = successful.map(m => m.ttft_ms).sort((a, b) => a - b); const tpots = successful.map(m => m.tpot_ms).filter(v => v !== null).sort((a, b) => a - b); const totals = successful.map(m => m.total_ms).sort((a, b) => a - b); const throughputs = successful.map(m => m.tokens_per_second).filter(v => v > 0); return { success_rate: successful.length / total, error_rate: (total - successful.length) / total, sample_size: total, ttft: { mean: mean(ttfts), median: percentile(ttfts, 50), p95: percentile(ttfts, 95), p99: percentile(ttfts, 99), min: Math.min(...ttfts), max: Math.max(...ttfts) }, tpot: tpots.length > 0 ? { mean: mean(tpots), median: percentile(tpots, 50), p95: percentile(tpots, 95) } : null, total_latency: { mean: mean(totals), median: percentile(totals, 50), p95: percentile(totals, 95), p99: percentile(totals, 99) }, throughput: { mean_tps: mean(throughputs), median_tps: percentile(throughputs, 50) } }; } } function mean(arr) { return arr.reduce((sum, val) => sum + val, 0) / arr.length; } function percentile(sortedArr, p) { const index = Math.ceil((sortedArr.length * p) / 100) - 1; return sortedArr[Math.max(0, index)]; } function sleep(ms) { return new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms)); } This measurement infrastructure captures: Time to First Token (TTFT): Critical for perceived responsiveness—users notice delays before output begins Time Per Output Token (TPOT): Determines generation speed after first token—affects throughput Total latency: End-to-end time—matters for batch processing and high-volume scenarios Tokens per second: Overall throughput metric—useful for capacity planning Statistical distributions: Mean alone masks variability—p95/p99 reveal tail latencies that impact user experience Success/error rates: Stability metrics—some models timeout or crash under load Designing Meaningful Benchmark Suites Benchmark quality depends on prompt selection. Generic prompts don't reflect real application behavior. Design suites that mirror actual use cases: // benchmarks/suites/default.json { "name": "default", "description": "General-purpose benchmark covering diverse scenarios", "prompts": [ { "id": "short-factual", "text": "What is the capital of France?", "category": "factual", "expected_tokens": 5 }, { "id": "medium-explanation", "text": "Explain how photosynthesis works in 3-4 sentences.", "category": "explanation", "expected_tokens": 80 }, { "id": "long-reasoning", "text": "Analyze the economic factors that led to the 2008 financial crisis. Discuss at least 5 major causes with supporting details.", "category": "reasoning", "expected_tokens": 250 }, { "id": "code-generation", "text": "Write a Python function that finds the longest palindrome in a string. Include docstring and example usage.", "category": "coding", "expected_tokens": 150 }, { "id": "creative-writing", "text": "Write a short story (3 paragraphs) about a robot learning to paint.", "category": "creative", "expected_tokens": 200 } ] } This suite covers multiple dimensions: Length variation: Short (5 tokens), medium (80), long (250)—tests models across output ranges Task diversity: Factual recall, explanation, reasoning, code, creative—reveals capability breadth Token predictability: Expected token counts enable throughput calculations For production applications, create custom suites matching your actual workload: { "name": "customer-support", "description": "Simulates actual customer support queries", "prompts": [ { "id": "product-question", "text": "How do I reset my password for the customer portal?" }, { "id": "troubleshooting", "text": "I'm getting error code 503 when trying to upload files. What should I do?" }, { "id": "policy-inquiry", "text": "What is your refund policy for annual subscriptions?" } ] } Visualizing Multi-Dimensional Performance Comparisons Raw numbers don't reveal insights—visualization makes patterns obvious. The frontend implements several comparison views: Comparison Table shows side-by-side metrics: // frontend/src/components/ResultsTable.jsx export function ResultsTable({ results }) { return ( {results.map(result => ( ))} Model TTFT (ms) TPOT (ms) Throughput (tok/s) P95 Latency Error Rate {result.model_id} {result.stats.ttft.median.toFixed(0)} (p95: {result.stats.ttft.p95.toFixed(0)}) {result.stats.tpot?.median.toFixed(1) || 'N/A'} {result.stats.throughput.median_tps.toFixed(1)} {result.stats.total_latency.p95.toFixed(0)} ms 0.05 ? 'error' : 'success'}> {(result.stats.error_rate * 100).toFixed(1)}% ); } Latency Distribution Chart reveals performance consistency: // Using Chart.js for visualization export function LatencyChart({ results }) { const data = { labels: results.map(r => r.model_id), datasets: [ { label: 'Median (p50)', data: results.map(r => r.stats.total_latency.median), backgroundColor: 'rgba(75, 192, 192, 0.5)' }, { label: 'p95', data: results.map(r => r.stats.total_latency.p95), backgroundColor: 'rgba(255, 206, 86, 0.5)' }, { label: 'p99', data: results.map(r => r.stats.total_latency.p99), backgroundColor: 'rgba(255, 99, 132, 0.5)' } ] }; return ( ); } Recommendations Engine synthesizes multi-dimensional comparison: export function generateRecommendations(results) { const recommendations = []; // Find fastest TTFT (best perceived responsiveness) const fastestTTFT = results.reduce((best, r) => r.stats.ttft.median < best.stats.ttft.median ? r : best ); recommendations.push({ category: 'Fastest Response', model: fastestTTFT.model_id, reason: `Lowest median TTFT: ${fastestTTFT.stats.ttft.median.toFixed(0)}ms` }); // Find highest throughput const highestThroughput = results.reduce((best, r) => r.stats.throughput.median_tps > best.stats.throughput.median_tps ? r : best ); recommendations.push({ category: 'Best Throughput', model: highestThroughput.model_id, reason: `Highest tok/s: ${highestThroughput.stats.throughput.median_tps.toFixed(1)}` }); // Find most consistent (lowest p95-p50 spread) const mostConsistent = results.reduce((best, r) => { const spread = r.stats.total_latency.p95 - r.stats.total_latency.median; const bestSpread = best.stats.total_latency.p95 - best.stats.total_latency.median; return spread < bestSpread ? r : best; }); recommendations.push({ category: 'Most Consistent', model: mostConsistent.model_id, reason: 'Lowest latency variance (p95-p50 spread)' }); return recommendations; } Key Takeaways and Benchmarking Best Practices Effective model benchmarking requires scientific methodology, comprehensive metrics, and application-specific testing. FLPerformance demonstrates that rigorous performance measurement is accessible to any development team. Critical principles for model evaluation: Test on target hardware: Results from cloud GPUs don't predict laptop performance Measure multiple dimensions: TTFT, TPOT, throughput, consistency all matter Use statistical rigor: Single runs mislead—capture distributions with adequate sample sizes Design realistic workloads: Generic benchmarks don't predict your application's behavior Include warmup iterations: Model loading and JIT compilation affect early measurements Control concurrency: Real applications handle multiple requests—test at realistic loads Document methodology: Reproducible results require documented procedures and configurations The complete benchmarking platform with model management, measurement infrastructure, visualization dashboards, and comprehensive documentation is available at github.com/leestott/FLPerformance. Clone the repository and run the startup script to begin evaluating models on your hardware. Resources and Further Reading FLPerformance Repository - Complete benchmarking platform Quick Start Guide - Setup and first benchmark run Microsoft Foundry Local Documentation - SDK reference and model catalog Architecture Guide - System design and SDK integration Benchmarking Best Practices - Methodology and troubleshootingFrom Cloud to Chip: Building Smarter AI at the Edge with Windows AI PCs
As AI engineers, we’ve spent years optimizing models for the cloud, scaling inference, wrangling latency, and chasing compute across clusters. But the frontier is shifting. With the rise of Windows AI PCs and powerful local accelerators, the edge is no longer a constraint it’s now a canvas. Whether you're deploying vision models to industrial cameras, optimizing speech interfaces for offline assistants, or building privacy-preserving apps for healthcare, Edge AI is where real-world intelligence meets real-time performance. Why Edge AI, Why Now? Edge AI isn’t just about running models locally, it’s about rethinking the entire lifecycle: - Latency: Decisions in milliseconds, not round-trips to the cloud. - Privacy: Sensitive data stays on-device, enabling HIPAA/GDPR compliance. - Resilience: Offline-first apps that don’t break when the network does. - Cost: Reduced cloud compute and bandwidth overhead. With Windows AI PCs powered by Intel and Qualcomm NPUs and tools like ONNX Runtime, DirectML, and Olive, developers can now optimize and deploy models with unprecedented efficiency. What You’ll Learn in Edge AI for Beginners The Edge AI for Beginners curriculum is a hands-on, open-source guide designed for engineers ready to move from theory to deployment. Multi-Language Support This content is available in over 48 languages, so you can read and study in your native language. What You'll Master This course takes you from fundamental concepts to production-ready implementations, covering: Small Language Models (SLMs) optimized for edge deployment Hardware-aware optimization across diverse platforms Real-time inference with privacy-preserving capabilities Production deployment strategies for enterprise applications Why EdgeAI Matters Edge AI represents a paradigm shift that addresses critical modern challenges: Privacy & Security: Process sensitive data locally without cloud exposure Real-time Performance: Eliminate network latency for time-critical applications Cost Efficiency: Reduce bandwidth and cloud computing expenses Resilient Operations: Maintain functionality during network outages Regulatory Compliance: Meet data sovereignty requirements Edge AI Edge AI refers to running AI algorithms and language models locally on hardware, close to where data is generated without relying on cloud resources for inference. It reduces latency, enhances privacy, and enables real-time decision-making. Core Principles: On-device inference: AI models run on edge devices (phones, routers, microcontrollers, industrial PCs) Offline capability: Functions without persistent internet connectivity Low latency: Immediate responses suited for real-time systems Data sovereignty: Keeps sensitive data local, improving security and compliance Small Language Models (SLMs) SLMs like Phi-4, Mistral-7B, Qwen and Gemma are optimized versions of larger LLMs, trained or distilled for: Reduced memory footprint: Efficient use of limited edge device memory Lower compute demand: Optimized for CPU and edge GPU performance Faster startup times: Quick initialization for responsive applications They unlock powerful NLP capabilities while meeting the constraints of: Embedded systems: IoT devices and industrial controllers Mobile devices: Smartphones and tablets with offline capabilities IoT Devices: Sensors and smart devices with limited resources Edge servers: Local processing units with limited GPU resources Personal Computers: Desktop and laptop deployment scenarios Course Modules & Navigation Course duration. 10 hours of content Module Topic Focus Area Key Content Level Duration 📖 00 Introduction to EdgeAI Foundation & Context EdgeAI Overview • Industry Applications • SLM Introduction • Learning Objectives Beginner 1-2 hrs 📚 01 EdgeAI Fundamentals Cloud vs Edge AI comparison EdgeAI Fundamentals • Real World Case Studies • Implementation Guide • Edge Deployment Beginner 3-4 hrs 🧠 02 SLM Model Foundations Model families & architecture Phi Family • Qwen Family • Gemma Family • BitNET • μModel • Phi-Silica Beginner 4-5 hrs 🚀 03 SLM Deployment Practice Local & cloud deployment Advanced Learning • Local Environment • Cloud Deployment Intermediate 4-5 hrs ⚙️ 04 Model Optimization Toolkit Cross-platform optimization Introduction • Llama.cpp • Microsoft Olive • OpenVINO • Apple MLX • Workflow Synthesis Intermediate 5-6 hrs 🔧 05 SLMOps Production Production operations SLMOps Introduction • Model Distillation • Fine-tuning • Production Deployment Advanced 5-6 hrs 🤖 06 AI Agents & Function Calling Agent frameworks & MCP Agent Introduction • Function Calling • Model Context Protocol Advanced 4-5 hrs 💻 07 Platform Implementation Cross-platform samples AI Toolkit • Foundry Local • Windows Development Advanced 3-4 hrs 🏭 08 Foundry Local Toolkit Production-ready samples Sample applications (see details below) Expert 8-10 hrs Each module includes Jupyter notebooks, code samples, and deployment walkthroughs, perfect for engineers who learn by doing. Developer Highlights - 🔧 Olive: Microsoft's optimization toolchain for quantization, pruning, and acceleration. - 🧩 ONNX Runtime: Cross-platform inference engine with support for CPU, GPU, and NPU. - 🎮 DirectML: GPU-accelerated ML API for Windows, ideal for gaming and real-time apps. - 🖥️ Windows AI PCs: Devices with built-in NPUs for low-power, high-performance inference. Local AI: Beyond the Edge Local AI isn’t just about inference, it’s about autonomy. Imagine agents that: - Learn from local context - Adapt to user behavior - Respect privacy by design With tools like Agent Framework, Azure AI Foundry and Windows Copilot Studio, and Foundry Local developers can orchestrate local agents that blend LLMs, sensors, and user preferences, all without cloud dependency. Try It Yourself Ready to get started? Clone the Edge AI for Beginners GitHub repo, run the notebooks, and deploy your first model to a Windows AI PC or IoT devices Whether you're building smart kiosks, offline assistants, or industrial monitors, this curriculum gives you the scaffolding to go from prototype to production.From Concept to Code: Building Production-Ready Multi-Agent Systems with Microsoft Foundry
We have reached a critical inflection point in AI development. Within the Microsoft Foundry ecosystem, the core value proposition of "Agents" is shifting decisively—moving from passive content generation to active task execution and process automation. These are no longer just conversational interfaces. They are intelligent entities capable of connecting models, data, and tools to actively execute complex business logic. To support this evolution, Microsoft has introduced a powerful suite of capabilities: the Microsoft Agent Framework for sophisticated orchestration, the Agent V2 SDK, and integrated Microsoft Foundry VSCode Extensions. These innovations provide the tooling necessary to bridge the gap between theoretical research and secure, scalable enterprise landing. But how do you turn these separate components into a cohesive business solution? That is the challenge we address today. This post dives into the practical application of these tools, demonstrating how to connect the dots and transform complex multi-agent concepts into deployed reality. The Scenario: Recruitment through an "Agentic Lens" Let’s ground this theoretical discussion with a real-world scenario that perfectly models a multi-agent environment: The Recruitment Process. By examining recruitment through an agentic lens, we can identify distinct entities with specific mandates: The Recruiter Agent: Tasked with setting boundary conditions (job requirements) and preparing data retrieval mechanisms (interview questions). The Applicant Agent: Objective is to process incoming queries and synthesize the best possible output to meet the recruiter's acceptance criteria. Phase 1: Design Achieving Orchestration via Microsoft Foundry Workflows To bridge the gap between our scenario and technical reality, we start with Foundry Workflows. Workflows serves as the visual integration environment within Foundry. It allows you to build declarative pipelines that seamlessly combine deterministic business logic with the probabilistic nature of autonomous AI agents. By adopting this visual, low-code paradigm, you eliminate the need to write complex orchestration logic from scratch. Workflows empowers you to coordinate specialized agents intuitively, creating adaptive systems that solve complex business problems collaboratively. Visually Orchestrating the Cycle Microsoft Foundry provides an intuitive, web-based drag-and-drop interface. This canvas allows you to integrate specialized AI agents alongside standard procedural logic blocks, transforming abstract ideas into executable processes without writing extensive glue code. To translate our recruitment scenario into a functional workflow, we follow a structured approach: Agent Prerequisites: We pre-configure our specialized agents within Foundry. We create a Recruiter Agent (prompted to generate evaluation criteria) and an Applicant Agent (prompted to synthesize responses). Orchestrating the Interaction: We drag these nodes onto the board and define the data flow. The process begins with the Recruiter generating questions, piping that output directly as input for the Applicant agent. Adding Business Logic: A true workflow requires decision-making. We introduce control flow logic, such as IF/ELSE conditional blocks, to evaluate the recruiter's questions based on predefined criteria. This allows the workflow to branch dynamically—if satisfied, the candidate answers the questions; if not, the questions are regenerated. Alternative: YAML Configuration For developers who prefer a code-first approach or wish to rapidly replicate this logic across environments, Foundry allows you to export the underlying YAML. kind: workflow trigger: kind: OnConversationStart id: trigger_wf actions: - kind: SetVariable id: action-1763742724000 variable: Local.LatestMessage value: =UserMessage(System.LastMessageText) - kind: InvokeAzureAgent id: action-1763736666888 agent: name: HiringManager input: messages: =System.LastMessage output: autoSend: true messages: Local.LatestMessage - kind: Question variable: Local.Input id: action-1763737142539 entity: StringPrebuiltEntity skipQuestionMode: SkipOnFirstExecutionIfVariableHasValue prompt: Boss, can you confirm this ? - kind: ConditionGroup conditions: - condition: =Local.Input="Yes" actions: - kind: InvokeAzureAgent id: action-1763744279421 agent: name: ApplyAgent input: messages: =Local.LatestMessage output: autoSend: true messages: Local.LatestMessage - kind: EndConversation id: action-1763740066007 id: if-action-1763736954795-0 id: action-1763736954795 elseActions: - kind: GotoAction actionId: action-1763736666888 id: action-1763737425562 id: "" name: HRDemo description: "" Simulating the End-to-End Process Once constructed, Foundry provides a robust, built-in testing environment. You can trigger the workflow with sample input data to simulate the end-to-end cycle. This allows you to debug hand-offs and interactions in real-time before writing a single line of application code. Phase 2: Develop From Cloud Canvas to Local Code with VSCode Foundry Workflows excels at rapid prototyping. However, a visual UI is rarely sufficient for enterprise-grade production. The critical question becomes: How do we integrate these visual definitions into a rigorous Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC)? While the cloud portal is ideal for design, enterprise application delivery happens in the local IDE. The Microsoft Foundry VSCode Extension bridges this gap. This extension allows developers to: Sync: Pull down workflow definitions from the cloud to your local machine. Inspect: Review the underlying logic in your preferred environment. Scaffold: Rapidly generate the underlying code structures needed to run the flow. This accelerates the shift from "understanding" the flow to "implementing" it. Phase 3: Deploy Productionizing Intelligence with the Microsoft Agent Framework Once the multi-agent orchestration has been validated locally, the final step is transforming it into a shipping application. This is where the Microsoft Agent Framework shines as a runtime engine. It natively ingests the declarative Workflow definitions (YAML) exported from Foundry. This allows artifacts from the prototyping phase to be directly promoted to application deployment. By simply referencing the workflow configuration libraries, you can "hydrate" the entire multi-agent system with minimal boilerplate. Here is the code required to initialize and run the workflow within your application. Note - Check the source code https://github.com/microsoft/Agent-Framework-Samples/tree/main/09.Cases/MicrosoftFoundryWithAITKAndMAF Summary: The Journey from Conversation to Action Microsoft Foundry is more than just a toolbox; it is a comprehensive solution designed to bridge the chasm between theoretical AI research and secure, scalable enterprise applications. In this post, we walked through the three critical stages of modern AI development: Design (Low-Code): Leveraging Foundry Workflows to visually orchestrate specialized agents (Recruiter vs. Applicant) mixed with deterministic business rules. Develop (Local SDLC): Utilizing the VSCode Extension to break down the barriers between the cloud canvas and the local IDE, enabling seamless synchronization and debugging. Deploy (Native Runtime): Using the Microsoft Agent Framework to ingest declarative YAML, realizing the promise of "Configuration as Code" and eliminating tedious logic rewriting. By following this path, developers can move beyond simple content generation and build adaptive, multi-agent systems that drive real business value. Learning Resoures What's Microsoft Foundry (https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/ai-foundry/what-is-azure-ai-foundry?view=foundry) Work with Declarative (Low-code) Agent workflows in Visual Studio Code (preview) (https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/ai-foundry/agents/how-to/vs-code-agents-workflow-low-code?view=foundry) Microsoft Agent Framework(https://github.com/microsoft/agent-framework) Microsoft Foundry VSCode Extension(https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=TeamsDevApp.vscode-ai-foundry)AI Toolkit Extension Pack for Visual Studio Code: Ignite 2025 Update
Unlock the Latest Agentic App Capabilities The Ignite 2025 update delivers a major leap forward for the AI Toolkit extension pack in VS Code, introducing a unified, end-to-end environment for building, visualizing, and deploying agentic applications to Microsoft Foundry, and the addition of Anthropic’s frontier Claude models in the Model Catalog! This release enables developers to build and debug locally in VS Code, then deploy to the cloud with a single click. Seamlessly switch between VS Code and the Foundry portal for visualization, orchestration, and evaluation, creating a smooth roundtrip workflow that accelerates innovation and delivers a truly unified AI development experience. Download the http://aka.ms/aitoolkit today and start building next-generation agentic apps in VS Code! What Can You Do with the AI Toolkit Extension Pack? Access Anthropic models in the Model Catalog Following the Microsoft, NVIDIA and Anthropic strategic partnerships announcement today, we are excited to share that Anthropic’s frontier Claude models including Claude Sonnet 4.5, Claude Opus 4.1, and Claude Haiku 4.5, are now integrated into the AI Toolkit, providing even more choices and flexibility when building intelligent applications and AI agents. Build AI Agents Using GitHub Copilot Scaffold agent applications using best-practice patterns, tool-calling examples, tracing hooks, and test scaffolds, all powered by Copilot and aligned with the Microsoft Agent Framework. Generate agent code in Python or .NET, giving you flexibility to target your preferred runtime. Build and Customize YAML Workflows Design YAML-based workflows in the Foundry portal, then continue editing and testing directly in VS Code. To customize your YAML-based workflows, instantly convert it to Agent Framework code using GitHub Copilot. Upgrade from declarative design to code-first customization without starting from scratch. Visualize Multi-Agent Workflows Envision your code-based agent workflows with an interactive graph visualizer that reveals each component and how they connect Watch in real-time how each node lights up as you run your agent. Use the visualizer to understand and debug complex agent graphs, making iteration fast and intuitive. Experiment, Debug, and Evaluate Locally Use the Hosted Agents Playground to quickly interact with your agents on your development machine. Leverage local tracing support to debug reasoning steps, tool calls, and latency hotspots—so you can quickly diagnose and fix issues. Define metrics, tasks, and datasets for agent evaluation, then implement metrics using the Foundry Evaluation SDK and orchestrate evaluations runs with the help of Copilot. Seamless Integration Across Environments Jump from Foundry Portal to VS Code Web for a development environment in your preferred code editor setting. Open YAML workflows, playgrounds, and agent templates directly in VS Code for editing and deployment. How to Get Started Install the AI Toolkit extension pack from the VS Code marketplace. Check out documentation. Get started with building workflows with Microsoft Foundry in VS Code 1. Work with Hosted (Pro-code) Agent workflows in VS Code 2. Work with Declarative (Low-code) Agent workflows in VS Code Feedback & Support Try out the extensions and let us know what you think! File issues or feedback on our GitHub repo for Foundry extension and AI Toolkit extension. Your input helps us make continuous improvements.
