For iambic therapeutics infrastructure and model engineering teams
NPBench failed: missing prediction, file layout or upstream worker?
Separate prediction generation from benchmark ingestion. Trace missing or malformed artifacts before interpreting an incomplete evaluation as a model-quality result.
Free 30-day Team evaluation. No card or automatic subscription. Work email verification required.
Replay a resolved Iambic Therapeutics workflow incident
Upload your log file. Review the selected evidence and masking, then run diagnosis. Keep the original log for any follow-up questions.
Before uploading, review cloud data handling and local options.
Upload your log file. Large files are processed in your browser. Only selected evidence is submitted when you run diagnosis.
Try Denpex for 30 days. FREE.
No credit card. No automatic subscription. See whether Denpex helps with an incident you already understand.
Start your free 30-day Team evaluation
Up to 50 diagnoses a day for 30 days. Verify your work email to activate an eligible company evaluation, then replay a resolved incident and compare the evidence and next steps with your team's confirmed cause.
What a useful evaluation should establish
Compare one incident your team has already resolved with the first failure, quoted evidence and remaining questions. Begin with this question: Did the producer finish the expected prediction artifacts? Only assign a process, device or recovery state when the submitted evidence establishes it.
Did the producer finish the expected prediction artifacts?
Evidence to compare: Producer exit status, artifact inventory and benchmark input paths.
A benchmark can fail because an earlier job produced no usable predictions. Establish the producer outcome before changing evaluator configuration or judging model quality.
Does the selected dataset match the folder contract?
Evidence to compare: Dataset mode, redacted directory layout and the earliest reader exception.
The repository specifies different layouts and metrics. A file-contract failure is not evidence of a CUDA or device issue.
Which stage owns the next investigation?
Evidence to compare: Producer and evaluator timestamps with the confirmed failing operation.
Keep runtime failure, format conversion and metric computation separate. Escalate the supported stage and identify missing producer evidence explicitly.
Use Denpex alongside your existing telemetry tools to investigate submitted incident evidence. With monitoring configured on a supported plan, detected failures can trigger alerts and an automatic diagnosis from the captured evidence.
Inside Denpex
See the evidence, not just the claim
Follow the causal chain, inspect the quoted evidence and prepare the next handoff. These actual product captures use founder-account examples and the VS Code extension, with the source identified under each image. Open a capture to inspect it at full size.
Follow the failure through the cascade

Prepare the hardware escalation

Ask for the evidence that is missing

Keep the investigation in the editor
