Matt Steiner
Publications
Experience Graphs: The Data Foundation for Self-Improving Agents
The database community has repeatedly advanced the state of the art by recognizing that new workloads demand new system architectures. We argue that long-horizon agentic tasks -- code generation, scientific discovery, hardware design -- are such a workload. These agents explore: they generate artifacts, execute tools, observe failures, branch, and repair over hundreds of steps. This search produces a structured object we call an experience graph: executable artifacts, tool outputs, rewards, sibling comparisons, and causal lineage. Yet existing agent frameworks treat this experience as disposable state -- JSON checkpoints and session logs that cannot be recovered after a crash, queried across users, or materialized into training data. We propose Trellis: a data foundation that treats the experience graph as first-class, governed, queryable database state. The core insight is that search over experience graphs is a database access pattern. Frontier selection is a query, cross-session reuse is vector-seeded graph retrieval, training-data extraction is a materialized view, and reconstructing what an agent knew at any past step is a time-travel query. When the database owns the experience graph, agents become stateless compute, and crash recovery, horizontal scaling, and a closed-loop training flywheel emerge as architectural byproducts. We ground the design in KernelEvolve, a production accelerator-kernel optimizer at Meta, where cross-session reuse reaches a target speedup roughly 10x faster at 52% lower token cost. More broadly, Trellis turns inference-time search from disposable computation into a durable institutional asset: logs made databases reliable; experience graphs may make agents cumulative.
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.