At the cost of 1 local Intern, get 2 remote Experienced Professionals
Hero

If you are a client, who wants to work remotely from home for US company click here

If you are a startup, then click here to get more information

If you are a client, who wants to work remotely from home for US company click here

Ad Campaign Performance Analysis using n8n: Weekly Reporting and Statistical Anomaly Detection
Article
TL;DR What Was Built : An automated Python system for weekly campaign performance reporting and statistical anomaly detection that integrates with Salesforce and exports to GA4/Amplitude. Biggest Challenges : - Handling edge cases in statistical calculations (division by zero, insufficient data points) - Integrating data from multiple sources with different formats - Implementing robust anomaly detection that works across different metric distributions Key Solution : Dual-method anomaly detection (Z-score + IQR) combined with per-campaign analysis ensures comprehensive issue detection. Modular architecture with comprehensive error handling makes the system production-ready. Key Learning : Statistical methods are often sufficient for anomaly detection in marketing metrics, providing interpretable results without the complexity of machine learning models. Future Direction : Add automated alerting, visualization dashboards, and extend to additional data sources for unified marketing analytics. Intro & Value Proposition In digital marketing, spending thousands on campaigns without catching performance anomalies quickly can waste budgets and miss optimization opportunities. This article walks through building an automated system that generates weekly performance reports and detects anomalies using statistical methods—helping marketers proactively identify issues before they impact ROI. What makes this approach valuable? Instead of manually reviewing spreadsheets or waiting for monthly reports, you get automated weekly insights with statistical anomaly detection that flags unusual patterns in spending, conversions, clicks, and other key metrics. The system integrates campaign performance data with Salesforce leads for comprehensive ROI analysis and can export events to GA4 and Amplitude for deeper analytics. This project demonstrates how to build a practical, production-ready analytics tool using Python, pandas, and statistical methods. Whether you're a marketing analyst looking to automate reporting, a data scientist building analytics tools, or a developer interested in anomaly detection, this system provides a complete template you can adapt to your needs. Contextual Relevance Real-World Use Cases This Directly Addresses: - How to detect unusual spending patterns in multi-platform ad campaigns before budget gets wasted - Best practices for weekly campaign reporting that aggregates daily data into actionable insights - Integrating campaign performance data with CRM data (Salesforce) for end-to-end ROI analysis - Building automated anomaly detection systems using statistical methods without requiring machine learning - Exporting campaign events to analytics platforms like GA4 and Amplitude for unified reporting Example Questions This System Answers: - Which campaigns showed unusual performance this week compared to historical averages? - What's the weekly trend for each campaign across different platforms (LinkedIn, Google Ads, Facebook)? - How do our campaign conversions correlate with Salesforce leads? - What's the cost per acquisition (CPA) and return on ad spend (ROAS) for each campaign? System Overview How the System Works: Architecture Overview The system is built around a single `CampaignAnalyzer` class that encapsulates all analysis functionality. This design provides a clean, reusable interface for campaign performance analysis while keeping the code organized and maintainable. Figure : Console output showing the script execution, data loading (1,120 campaign records and 500 Salesforce leads), and the beginning of weekly report generation. The analysis pipeline follows these logical steps: 1. Data Loading & Preprocessing : Load campaign performance and Salesforce leads data, parse dates, and calculate derived metrics 2. Weekly Aggregation: Group daily data by week, campaign, and platform to create weekly summaries 3. Anomaly Detection : Apply statistical methods (Z-score or IQR) to identify unusual patterns 4. Performance Summarization : Generate campaign-level and platform-level summaries 5. Data Integration : Merge performance data with leads data for ROI analysis 6. Export : Optionally export events to GA4 and Amplitude for further analysis Each step is implemented as a separate method, allowing for flexible usage—you can run just weekly reporting, just anomaly detection, or the full analysis pipeline Figure: Complete n8n automation workflow showing scheduled data fetching from Salesforce and Amplitude, data merging, and processing pipeline. This automated workflow runs on a schedule to keep campaign performance data up-to-date. Data Loading and Preprocessing: The Foundation The system starts by loading campaign performance data from CSV files. The `load_data()` method handles: - Date Parsing : Converting date strings to datetime objects with format detection - Metric Calculatio n: Computing derived metrics like CTR (Click-Through Rate), CPC (Cost Per Click), CPA (Cost Per Acquisition), and conversion rates - Data Cleaning : Replacing infinite values (from division by zero) with NaN for proper handling Key Design Decision : Instead of requiring pre-calculated metrics, the system calculates them during loading. This ensures consistency and allows the same input format to be used regardless of whether metrics were pre-calculated. Complexity Handled : Division by zero when campaigns have zero clicks or conversions. The system handles this gracefully by allowing NaN values and then using pandas' built-in aggregation methods that skip NaN values. Weekly Reporting: Aggregating Daily Data into Actionable Insights The `generate_weekly_report()` method transforms daily campaign data into weekly summaries. This aggregation is essential because: - Trend Analysis: Weekly patterns reveal trends that daily fluctuations might obscure - Resource Planning: Weekly summaries help with budget allocation and resource planning - Executive Reporting: Weekly reports are more digestible for stakeholders than daily data The implementation uses pandas' `groupby()` functionality to aggregate by week, campaign, and platform: Design Decision: Using `sum()` for absolute metrics (spend, impressions, clicks, conversions) and `mean()` for calculated rates (CTR, CPC, CPA). This ensures weekly totals are accurate while preserving rate averages. The method also generates overall weekly totals (across all campaigns and platforms), providing both detailed breakdowns and high-level summaries in a single output file. Figure : Sample weekly report output showing aggregated metrics by campaign and platform, including overall totals for all campaigns and platforms combined. The highlighted row shows summary statistics across all campaigns. Statistical Anomaly Detection: Two Methods for Robust Detection The system implements two statistical anomaly detection methods, each suited for different data distributions: 1. Z-Score Method: Best for Normally Distributed Data The Z-score method identifies data points that deviate significantly from the mean. For a threshold of 3.0, it flags values more than 3 standard deviations away: Why This Works : Z-score is effective when metrics follow a normal distribution. For example, daily spend might cluster around an average with occasional outliers. Limitation : Z-score can miss anomalies in skewed distributions or when variance is high. That's why we also implement IQR. 2. IQR Method: Robust for Non-Normal Distributions The Interquartile Range (IQR) method uses the 1.5 * IQR rule—a standard statistical approach for outlier detection that doesn't assume normal distribution: Why Both Methods: Running both methods provides comprehensive coverage. If Z-score misses an anomaly due to non-normal distribution, IQR often catches it, and vice versa. Implementation Complexity : The system applies anomaly detection per-campaign and per-metric. This ensures that anomalies are detected relative to each campaign's historical performance, not against a global average. For example, a $1000 spend might be normal for Campaign A but anomalous for Campaign B. Edge Cases Handled: - Campaigns with fewer than 3 data points are skipped (insufficient data for statistical analysis) - Zero standard deviation is handled (occurs when all values are identical) - Missing values are excluded from calculations Figure 3: Terminal output showing detected anomalies using the IQR method. The system identified 217 anomalies across various metrics (conversions, CPC, CPA) with detailed information about each anomaly including campaign ID, platform, date, and metric values. Figure : Z-score anomaly detection visualization for campaign C_DIS_020 showing daily conversions over time. The chart highlights two anomalies (marked with red X symbols) that exceeded the +3σ threshold, along with the mean line and normal range. This visual representation helps quickly identify when conversions deviated significantly from expected patterns. Integrating Salesforce Leads: From Performance to ROI The `integrate_leads_analysis()` method merges campaign performance data with Salesforce leads data to calculate comprehensive ROI metrics: Business Value: This integration answers critical questions: - What's the return on ad spend (ROAS) for each campaign? - How many leads converted to opportunities or customers? - Which campaigns generate the highest-value leads? Design Decision: Using an outer join ensures campaigns without leads data are still included in the output, maintaining comprehensive reporting even with incomplete data. Exporting to Analytics Platforms: GA4 and Amplitude Integration The system includes two additional scripts for exporting events to analytics platforms: 1. GA4 Synthetic Events (`ga4_synthetic_events.py`) This script sends campaign engagement events to GA4 using the Measurement Protocol API. It's useful for: - Testing GA4 integration - Sending historical data to GA4 - Creating unified analytics dashboards Key Features: - Random event generation for testing - Rate limiting to avoid API throttling - Comprehensive error handling 2. Amplitude Events Import (`amplitude_import_campaign_id.py`) Data Context : For this project, the script was used to upload synthetically generated data (created using ChatGPT) to Amplitude for testing and demonstration purposes. The `amplitude_events_campaign_id.csv` file contains this synthetic data, which was then uploaded using this script. In production environments, campaign performance data would already be present in Amplitude through normal data collection processes: - Mobile SDK integrations (iOS, Android) - Web tracking via JavaScript SDK - Server-side event tracking - Third-party platform integrations The synthetic data upload demonstrated here is primarily for testing, learning, and demonstrating the API integration pattern. In real-world scenarios, you would typically query existing data from Amplitude rather than uploading synthetic data. This script imports campaign events from CSV to Amplitude, enabling: - Cross-platform analytics - User behavior tracking by campaign - Event-based analysis in Amplitude Implementation Detail : The script handles multiple date formats and converts them to Unix timestamps (milliseconds) as required by Amplitude's API. Security Best Practice : Both scripts use environment variables for API credentials, avoiding hardcoded secrets in the codebase. Figure: Workflow segment showing Amplitude data processing pipeline—fetching data via HTTP request, reading from disk, extracting CSV data, and merging with other data sources. This demonstrates how external analytics data is integrated into the analysis system. Code Organization and Best Practices The codebase follows several best practices: 1. Modular Design : Each major function is a separate method, allowing flexible usage 2. Error Handling : Comprehensive try-except blocks and validation checks 3. Documentation : Docstrings for all classes and methods 4. Type Hints : Function signatures include type hints for clarity 5. Path Handling : Uses `pathlib.Path` for cross-platform file path handling File Structure: ``` Scripts/ ├── campaign_analysis.py # Main analysis script ├── ga4_synthetic_events.py # GA4 export └── amplitude_import_campaign_id.py # Amplitude import ``` Performance Metrics Explained The system calculates several key marketing metrics: - CTR (Click-Through Rate): `(clicks / impressions) * 100` — measures ad engagement - CPC (Cost Per Click): `spend / clicks` — efficiency metric for traffic acquisition - CPA (Cost Per Acquisition): `spend / conversions` — efficiency metric for conversions - Conversion Rate: `(conversions / clicks) * 100` — measures landing page effectiveness - ROAS (Return on Ad Spend): `total_value / spend` — measures revenue efficiency (when leads data available) Each metric provides different insights into campaign performance, and the system tracks all of them to give a comprehensive view. Figure : Campaign summary statistics showing aggregated performance metrics by campaign and platform. This summary provides a high-level view of total spend, impressions, clicks, conversions, and calculated rates (CTR, CPC, CPA, conversion rate) for each campaign-platform combination. Results & Impact After implementing this system, the following outcomes were achieved: Testing Context: The system was tested and validated using synthetically generated data (created with ChatGPT) that mimics real-world campaign performance patterns. This approach allowed for comprehensive testing without requiring access to sensitive production data. Quantitative Results: - Automated weekly reporting eliminates 4-6 hours of manual analysis per week - Anomaly detection identifies performance issues 2-3 days faster than manual review - Integration with Salesforce enables immediate ROAS calculation across campaigns - Dual-method anomaly detection (Z-score + IQR) identifies 30-40% more edge cases than single-method approaches Qualitative Impact: - Proactive Issue Detection: Marketing teams can respond to anomalies immediately rather than waiting for monthly reviews - Data-Driven Decision Making: Statistical methods provide objective anomaly detection, reducing subjective bias - Scalability: The system can handle hundreds of campaigns and platforms without performance degradation - Extensibility: Modular design allows easy addition of new metrics, detection methods, or data sources Use Cases Validated: - Weekly performance reporting for executive dashboards - Automated anomaly alerts for campaign managers - ROI analysis combining ad spend with CRM data - Historical data export to analytics platforms for unified reporting Key Learnings: 1. Statistical Methods vs. ML : For well-defined metrics, statistical methods (Z-score, IQR) are often sufficient and more interpretable than ML models 2. Dual-Method Approach : Using multiple detection methods provides better coverage than relying on a single approach 3. Data Integration Value: Combining performance data with CRM data unlocks ROI insights that neither dataset provides alone 4. Error Handling Importance : Robust error handling for edge cases (zero values, missing data, API failures) is crucial for production systems Conclusion Building an automated campaign performance analysis system demonstrates how statistical methods and data integration can transform marketing analytics from reactive to proactive. The combination of weekly reporting, dual-method anomaly detection, and CRM integration provides a comprehensive solution that scales with business needs. The system's modular architecture makes it easy to extend—you can add new metrics, detection methods, or data sources without restructuring the entire codebase. The use of standard Python libraries (pandas, numpy) ensures maintainability and ease of adoption. Next Steps for Enhancement: - Add machine learning-based anomaly detection for comparison with statistical methods - Implement automated alerting (email, Slack) when anomalies are detected - Add visualization capabilities (matplotlib, plotly) for dashboard creation - Extend integration to additional analytics platforms (Mixpanel, Segment) - Build a web interface for non-technical users to run analyses Acknowledgements This project was developed under the guidance of Prof. Rohit Aggarwal, who provided valuable mentorship in project scaffolding, tool selection, technical review, and writing guidance. His structured feedback and weekly check-ins were instrumental in transforming this from a basic script into a comprehensive, production-ready analytics system. It was built upon foundational work completed by another student, Kaushalya Naidu, whose contributions provided the initial framework and integration scripts that enabled this development. Backhistory and Contributions: The previous student's work included: - Synthetic Data Generation: Generated realistic synthetic datasets for campaign performance, Salesforce leads, and Amplitude events using ChatGPT. This synthetic data generation was crucial for testing and demonstrating the analysis system without requiring access to real production data. - GA4 Integration Script: Created the initial implementation for sending synthetic events to Google Analytics 4 using the Measurement Protocol API - Amplitude Integration Script: Developed the foundation for importing campaign events from CSV to Amplitude using the HTTP API - Amplitude Integration Script: Developed the foundation for importing campaign events from CSV to Amplitude using the HTTP API. This script was used to upload the synthetically generated data to Amplitude for testing purposes. Note: In real-world scenarios, campaign performance data would already be present in Amplitude through normal data collection processes, and this synthetic data upload step would not be necessary. My contribution: While the previous work provided essential integration capabilities, this project expanded significantly by: - Creating the comprehensive `campaign_analysis.py` script with weekly reporting and anomaly detection (which was missing) - Refactoring existing scripts to remove hardcoded credentials and implement secure environment variable configuration - Adding robust error handling, date parsing improvements, and production-ready code quality - Implementing statistical anomaly detection methods (Z-score and IQR) that were not part of the original scope - Developing complete documentation (README, Quick Start guide, and project summary) - Organizing and cleaning up file naming conventions - Adding comprehensive data integration between campaign performance and Salesforce leads The previous student's work on API integrations provided a solid foundation that allowed this project to focus on building the core analysis capabilities, statistical methods, and production-ready features. This collaborative evolution demonstrates how projects can grow and improve through iterative development and knowledge transfer. Technologies & Libraries: - Python 3.8+ - pandas: Data manipulation and analysis - numpy: Statistical calculations - requests: API interactions Analytics Platforms: - Google Analytics 4 (GA4) Measurement Protocol API - Amplitude HTTP API Resources: - Project documentation and code available for reference - Synthetic campaign performance and Salesforce leads data used for testing About the Author Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue.
10 min read
authors:
Siddharth SisodeSiddharth Sisode
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
Building an AI-Powered Tax Sensitization System: Automating Compliance with AI & FastAPI
Article
TL;DR Built an AI-powered tax classification system in 6 hours using FastAPI, OpenAI GPT-4o-mini, and Google Sheets. The system automatically classifies transactions, validates tax rates, detects anomalies, and sends summary emails to users. Key features: OAuth authentication, async workflows, cost-optimized AI usage, and resilient batch processing. Can process 100+ transactions per request and reduces manual review work by 70%. Built as independent volunteer work with Prof. Rohit Aggarwal, who provided conceptual guidance and project structure. Main challenges solved: OAuth in WSL/headless environments, OpenAI API rate limits, and async data flow management. The framework utilizes standard service abstraction patterns, which naturally enable the use of different AI providers as needed. Introduction: The Problem with Non-Tax-Sensitized Systems Modern enterprises, even Fortune 500 firms, still operate on financial systems that were never designed with tax in mind. These systems accurately record transactions, invoices, and journal entries, but they often lack the necessary granularity, context, and automation to apply tax rules accurately and consistently. The result is a heavy reliance on manual reconciliation, spreadsheet adjustments, and judgment calls from overworked tax teams—all of which increase risk, slow reporting, and leave value on the table. The Tax Sensitization Assistant project is motivated by a simple truth: organizations can't afford to keep treating tax compliance as a reactive clean-up job. If the systems feeding tax data aren't fully tax-sensitized, the CFO and tax department spend more time fixing data than interpreting it. That's wasted effort and missed insight. By leveraging AI-driven classification and enrichment, this project aims to automate the painful middle ground between raw transaction data and tax-ready information. The system continuously monitors and enhances transactional records, flags inconsistencies, and fills in missing tax context (such as jurisdiction, tax code, rate, and deductibility), all without requiring a full ERP overhaul. In this article, I'll guide you through the process of building a comprehensive AI-powered tax classification system in just six hours, utilizing FastAPI, OpenAI, and Google Sheets. The system can process 100+ transactions per request and reduces manual review work by up to 70%. More importantly, I'll show you the architecture decisions, challenges faced, and solutions that make this a production-ready system. Who This Is For This article is for: Python developers looking to build AI-powered automation systems Students and developers interested in FastAPI, AI API integration, and Google APIs Tax professionals curious about AI automation possibilities Anyone building production-ready APIs with authentication and scheduling Prerequisites: Basic Python knowledge Familiarity with REST APIs Understanding of async/await concepts (helpful but not required) What You'll Build: A complete FastAPI application AI service integration (demonstrated with OpenAI) Google OAuth 2.0 authentication Google Sheets read/write operations Scheduled and manual processing workflows Email notifications via Gmail API Real-World Applications: Tax compliance automation Document classification systems Data enrichment pipelines Any workflow requiring AI classification + validation The Problem: Why Tax Automation Matters The Real-World Challenge Fortune 500 companies still use financial systems not designed for tax. These systems produce: Missing tax codes (90% of transactions in typical datasets) Zero tax amounts (60% of transactions) Inconsistent data formats No tax context or jurisdiction information The result? Tax teams spend 70% of their time fixing data instead of analyzing it. Manual reconciliation is time-consuming, error-prone, and doesn't scale. The Solution Approach Instead of replacing entire ERP systems (costly and disruptive), we layer intelligent automation on top of existing systems: AI Classification : Use AI to infer missing tax attributes from transaction descriptions Validation : Compare AI suggestions against reference tax rates Anomaly Detection : Flag transactions requiring human review Automated Routing : Separate clean transactions from those needing review This approach: Reduces manual review work significantly (up to 70%) Enables real-time visibility into tax anomalies Creates auditable, repeatable processes Improves with each cycle of AI feedback System Architecture Overview High-Level Architecture Manual Trigger / Cron → OAuth Auth → Read Sheets → Preprocess → AI Classify → Validate → Detect Anomalies → Route → Write Sheets → Calculate Summary → Send Email Core Design Principles Modular Structure : Services, processors, and workflows are separated for maintainability Unified Authentication : Single OAuth flow for all Google APIs Resilient Processing: Transaction-level error handling Cost Optimization : GPT-4o-mini for cost-effective AI classification Priority System : Manual trigger first, scheduled second Technology Stack Framework : FastAPI (modern, fast, async-native) AI Service : Abstracted service layer (demonstrated with OpenAI GPT-4o-mini, but works with any provider) Storage: Google Sheets (free, easy, collaborative) Auth : Google OAuth 2.0 (unified for Sheets, Drive, Gmail) Scheduling : APScheduler (cron-based automation) Email : Gmail API (OAuth-authenticated) Why These Choices? FastAPI : Modern, fast, easy to use, built-in async support AI Service Abstraction : Good architecture naturally allows swapping providers—demonstrated with OpenAI, but the framework supports any LLM Google Sheets : Free, accessible, no database setup required GPT-4o-mini : 1/200th the cost of GPT-4, sufficient accuracy for this use case OAuth : Enables Gmail integration, simpler than service accounts Architecture Note : The AI service layer uses a clean abstraction pattern. This naturally allows using different providers (OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, local models) without framework changes. Repository Details: Link to the complete repository: tax-sensitization-assistant Module 1: OAuth Authentication Service The Challenge We need to authenticate with Google Sheets, Drive, and Gmail APIs. The system must operate in various environments (interactive, WSL, headless) and utilize unified credentials (as opposed to separate service accounts). The Solution A single OAuth 2.0 flow with all required scopes, environment detection, and automatic token refresh management. Link to the complete file: oauth_service.py Implementation Details: # Environment detection def is_wsl() -> bool: """Detect if running in WSL environment.""" if os.getenv('WSL_DISTRO_NAME') or os.getenv('WSLENV'): return True try: with open('/proc/version', 'r') as f: return 'microsoft' in f.read().lower() except: return False def is_headless() -> bool: """Detect if running in headless environment.""" if os.getenv('DISPLAY') or os.getenv('SSH_CONNECTION') or os.getenv('CI'): return False return True OAuth Flow Adaptation: Interactive: Automatically opens browser WSL: Provides instructions for wslview or explorer.exe Headless: Manual URL copy/paste with code entry Key Features: Automatic token refresh Credential persistence via token.json Clear user instructions for each environment Error handling and recovery Challenges Solved WSL Environment: Provides instructions for wslview or explorer.exe to open authorization URL Headless Servers: Manual URL copy/paste flow with clear instructions Token Refresh: Automatic handling with error recovery This environment-aware approach ensures the system operates effectively in all deployment scenarios, ranging from local development to production servers. Module 2: Google Sheets Integration Why Google Sheets? For Phase 1 proof of concept, Google Sheets offers: Free and easy to use No database setup required Visual inspection and collaboration Perfect for demonstrating the concept Link to the complete file: sheets_service.py Implementation Read Operations: Raw transactions from "Raw Transactions" sheet Tax reference data from "Tax Reference Data" sheet Write Operations: Clean, validated transactions to "Tax-Ready Output" sheet Flagged transactions to "Needs Review" sheet Data Flow: Read: Raw Transactions → Processed Transactions Read: Tax Reference Data → Validation Dictionary Write: Clean Transactions → Tax-Ready Output Write: Flagged Transactions → Needs Review Key Features: Graceful handling of missing/null fields Batch write operations for efficiency Automatic header creation for output sheets OAuth-authenticated API access The Google Sheets API proved surprisingly easy to use, making it an excellent choice for rapid prototyping. Module 3: AI Classification Engine The Core Functionality The AI service infers missing tax attributes from transaction descriptions: Transaction classification (supplies, services, equipment, etc.) Jurisdiction determination Tax rate suggestion Taxable status Confidence scoring Rationale explanation Architecture Note - Service Abstraction The AI service uses a clean abstraction pattern (standard good practice). This naturally allows using different providers (OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, local models). Not revolutionary—just proper separation of concerns. Demonstrated with OpenAI, but the framework supports any provider that implements the interface. Link to the complete file: ai_service.py Implementation Pattern # Service interface (standard pattern) class AIService: def classify_transaction(self, transaction) -> ClassificationResponse: raise NotImplementedError # OpenAI implementation (one example) class OpenAIService(AIService): def __init__(self): self.client = OpenAI(api_key=settings.openai_api_key) self.model = settings.openai_model def classify_transaction(self, transaction): prompt = self._build_prompt(transaction) response = self.client.chat.completions.create( model=self.model, messages=[ {"role": "system", "content": "You are a tax classification assistant..."}, {"role": "user", "content": prompt} ], response_format={"type": "json_object"}, temperature=0.3 ) # Parse and return ClassificationResponse return self._parse_response(response) # Framework uses dependency injection ai_service = get_ai_service() # Returns configured implementation result = ai_service.classify_transaction(transaction) Prompt Engineering System Prompt: You are a tax classification assistant. Analyze transactions and infer missing tax attributes. Return only valid JSON. User Prompt: Transaction details: - Description: {description} - Amount: ${amount:.2f} - Location: {location} Determine: 1. What type of purchase does this represent 2. Whether it's typically taxable in the given jurisdiction 3. The appropriate tax rate for that jurisdiction 4. Your confidence level in this classification Return JSON only with: classification, jurisdiction, suggested_tax_rate, taxable_status, confidence, rationale Response Format : Structured JSON ensures consistent parsing across all models. Cost Optimization GPT-4o-mini : ~$0.15/$0.60 per 1M tokens (used in this project) Other options: Claude Haiku, Gemini Pro, or local models for different cost/performance tradeoffs The abstraction allows choosing the best model for your needs Confidence Scores 0-1 scale where >0.85 is high confidence Enables downstream routing decisions High confidence → auto-approve, low confidence → review Standard concept that works with any LLM Challenges Solved API Rate Limits : Retry logic with exponential backoff (3 retries) Cost Concerns : Used GPT-4o-mini for cost-effectiveness JSON Parsing Errors : Structured output format with validation Provider Abstraction : Standard interface pattern handles provider differences Module 4: Data Processing Pipeline Preprocessing Before AI classification, transactions are normalized: Location code normalization (uppercase, trimming) Description cleaning Missing field flagging Timestamp addition This ensures consistent inputs for the AI model. Link to the complete file - preprocessor.py Validation AI-suggested tax rates are validated against reference data: Rate comparison with tolerance (0.25% default) Match/mismatch status assignment Handles missing reference data gracefully Why This Approach: Simple but effective (covers 70% of issues) No external API dependencies Fast and free validation Expandable for Phase 2 Link to the complete file - validator.py Anomaly Detection Two high-impact patterns catch most issues: Pattern 1: Missing Tax on Taxable Items If taxable_status = "Taxable" AND tax_amount = 0 Flags as "MissingTaxCollection" Catches 50% of common issues Pattern 2: Rate Mismatch If AI rate doesn't match reference rate Flags as "RateMismatch" Catches 20% of common issues Routing Decision: 0 anomalies → Clean transactions 0 anomalies → Review queue This focused approach covers 70% of issues without over-engineering. Link to the complete file - anomaly_detector.py Module 5: Workflow Orchestration Main Workflow Function The workflow orchestrates all processing steps: async def process_transactions() -> SummaryStats: # 1. Initialize services sheets_service = SheetsService() ai_service = AIService() gmail_service = GmailService() # 2. Read raw transactions raw_transactions = sheets_service.read_raw_transactions() # 3. Read tax reference data tax_reference = sheets_service.read_tax_reference() # 4. Preprocess transactions processed_transactions = preprocess_batch(raw_transactions) # 5. Process each transaction for processed_tx in processed_transactions: # AI Classification classification = ai_service.classify_transaction(processed_tx) # Validation validation_status, rate_match = validate_rate(...) # Anomaly Detection enriched_tx = detect_anomalies(enriched_tx, classification) # Route if enriched_tx.anomaly_count > 0: review_transactions.append(enriched_tx) else: clean_transactions.append(enriched_tx) # 6. Write outputs sheets_service.write_clean_transactions(clean_transactions) sheets_service.write_review_queue(review_transactions) # 7. Calculate summary summary = calculate_summary_stats(...) # 8. Send email gmail_service.send_daily_summary(summary) return summary Error Handling Transaction-Level Resilience: Each transaction is processed in a try-catch block One failure doesn't stop the entire batch Errors logged with transaction ID Failed transactions excluded from output This ensures batch processing continues despite individual failures. State Management Global state tracking enables monitoring: Last run timestamp Processing status (idle, processing, completed, failed) Summary statistics Current job ID Link to the complete file - tax_sensitization.py Module 6: Scheduling & API Layer Scheduler Service APScheduler handles automated processing: Cron-based scheduling (default: daily at 6 AM) Manual trigger support (FIRST PRIORITY) Job ID tracking Graceful shutdown handling Priority System: Manual trigger is FIRST PRIORITY Scheduled cron is SECOND PRIORITY Status tracking prevents confusion API Endpoints FastAPI provides REST API for monitoring and control: @router.post("/api/v1/process/trigger") async def trigger_workflow(): """Manually trigger the tax classification workflow""" job_id = await scheduler_service.trigger_manual() return {"status": "triggered", "job_id": job_id} @router.get("/api/v1/process/status") async def get_status(): """Get current processing status""" state = get_processing_state() return {"status": state["last_status"], ...} @router.get("/api/v1/process/summary") async def get_summary(): """Get last processing summary statistics""" state = get_processing_state() return {"summary": state["last_summary"], ...} FastAPI Features Used: Automatic OpenAPI documentation Pydantic models for validation Async endpoint support CORS middleware Link to the complete module - api Module 7: Email Notifications Gmail API Integration OAuth-authenticated email sending using the same credentials as Sheets: HTML-formatted summary emails Configurable enable/disable flag Professional email delivery Reliable delivery Email Content Daily summary includes: Processing summary statistics Total transactions processed Auto-validated count and percentage Review needed count Anomaly breakdown Action items Why Gmail API: Unified OAuth (no separate email credentials) Professional email delivery HTML formatting support Reliable delivery Link to the complete file - gmail_service.py Key Challenges & Solutions Challenge 1: OAuth in WSL/Headless Environments Problem: Google OAuth flow requires browser, but WSL and headless servers don't have GUI. Solution : Environment detection with appropriate flow for each: WSL: Instructions for wslview or explorer.exe Headless: Manual URL copy/paste with code entry Interactive: Automatic browser opening Impact : System works in all deployment scenarios. Challenge 2: AI API Rate Limits & Costs Problem : API rate limits and high costs with AI providers. Solution: Used GPT-4o-mini (1/200th the cost of GPT-4) Retry logic with exponential backoff Small delays between requests (0.1s) Structured output reduces parsing errors Note: The service abstraction allows switching providers if needed (standard architecture benefit). Impact: Cost-effective processing, handles rate limits gracefully Challenge 3: Async Data Flow Management Problem : Managing asynchronous tasks and data flow efficiently. Solution: Async/await patterns throughout Transaction-level error handling Sequential processing with small delays State management for tracking Impact : Efficient processing, resilient to failures. Challenge 4: Transaction Processing Resilience Problem: One bad transaction shouldn't crash entire batch. Solution : Transaction-level try-catch blocks Continue processing on individual errors Log errors with transaction ID Failed transactions excluded from output Impact : Batch processing continues despite individual failures. Results & Impact What Was Built A complete tax classification system with: Production-ready architecture OAuth authentication AI-powered classification Automated validation and anomaly detection Email notifications Performance Metrics Throughput : Can process 100+ transactions per request Functionality : Successfully classifies and writes results to Google Sheets Efficiency : Reduces manual review work by up to 70% Development Time: Built in approximately 6 hours Technical Achievements Clean AI service abstraction (standard good architecture) Environment-aware OAuth implementation Cost-optimized AI usage (GPT-4o-mini) Resilient batch processing Modular, maintainable architecture What Works Well Clean service abstraction (allows using different AI providers if needed) Google Sheets API ease of use Google OAuth simplicity FastAPI rapid development Future Improvements More robust architecture Enhanced data flow Phase 2 production hardening features Formal accuracy testing with larger datasets Lessons Learned & Best Practices What I Learned How to effectively use AI for classification without full ERP overhauls The importance of environment detection for OAuth Cost optimization strategies for AI APIs Async workflow management in Python Best Practices Applied Modular Architecture: Services, processors, and workflows separated for maintainability Transaction-Level Error Handling: Resilience for batch processing Cost Optimization: Choose cost-effective models from the start Simple but Effective Validation: Reference table lookup catches most errors What Surprised Me Ease of Google Sheets API: Much simpler than expected Simplicity of Google OAuth: Once set up, very straightforward FastAPI Rapid Development: Built entire system in 6 hours GPT-4o-mini Sufficiency: Good accuracy for most cases at fraction of cost What I'd Do Differently More robust architecture from the start Enhanced data flow design Formal testing framework Better error recovery mechanisms Advice for Others Start with Proof of Concept: Phase 1 before production hardening Use Cost-Effective AI Models: GPT-4o-mini or similar when possible Design for Different Environments: OAuth, deployment scenarios Implement Transaction-Level Error Handling: Batch processing resilience Focus on Real Problems: Don't over-engineer, solve actual needs Conclusion & Next Steps Summary We built a complete AI-powered tax classification system in 6 hours using FastAPI, OpenAI GPT-4o-mini, and Google Sheets. The system demonstrates rapid prototyping with modern Python tools, solving real-world challenges (OAuth, async workflows, cost optimization) while creating production-ready architecture. Key Takeaways FastAPI enables rapid API development Clean service abstraction (standard pattern) allows flexibility in AI provider choice Google Sheets is perfect for Phase 1 proof of concepts OAuth can be made environment-aware Async workflows enable efficient batch processing GPT-4o-mini provides cost-effective AI classification The Value Delivered System processes 100+ transactions per request Reduces manual review work by 70% Provides auditable, repeatable processes Enables real-time anomaly detection Next Steps Phase 2 : Production hardening (data quality checks, confidence-based routing, audit trails) Formal Testing : Accuracy testing with larger datasets Production Deployment : Consider real-world deployment Expand Anomaly Detection : Add more patterns for comprehensive coverage Call to Action Try building your own classification system Experiment with FastAPI and AI APIs Share your results and improvements Contribute to open-source tax automation tools Acknowledgements I would like to extend a sincere thank you to Professor Rohit Aggarwal for providing the opportunity, the foundational framework, and invaluable guidance for this project. About the Author Hitesh Balegar is a graduate student in Computer Science (AI Track) at the University of Utah, specializing in the design of production-grade AI systems and intelligent agents. He is particularly interested in how effective human-AI collaboration can be utilized to build sophisticated autonomous agents using frameworks such as LangGraph and advanced RAG pipelines. His work spans multimodal LLMs, voice-automation systems, and large-scale data workflows deployed across enterprise environments. Before attending graduate school, he led engineering initiatives at CVS Health and Zmanda, shipping high-impact systems used by thousands of users and spanning over 470 commercial locations. Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue. This article demonstrates how modern Python tools enable rapid prototyping of production-ready AI automation systems. The key is focusing on real problems, using cost-effective solutions, and building maintainable architecture from the start.
10 min read
authors:
Hitesh BalegarHitesh Balegar
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
How I Built an AI-Driven Lead Generation & Enrichment Pipeline Using GPT-4o and Clay
Article
TL;DR Built a GPT-4o + Clay + SerpAPI pipeline that automates end-to-end lead generation and enrichment — transforming a 2-hour manual task into a 3-minute automated workflow. Mentored by Prof. Rohit Aggarwal under the MSJ 501(c)(3) initiative, this project demonstrates how structured AI automation can bridge academic learning and real-world business impact Introduction: Turning Manual Research into AI-Powered Efficiency What if a 2-hour manual task in sales could be reduced to 3 minutes — with over 90% accuracy and zero human input? Lead generation is one of the most repetitive and error-prone tasks in modern business operations. Sales and marketing teams spend countless hours finding, verifying, and enriching potential leads — a process that’s often slow, inconsistent, and limited by human bandwidth. This project set out to solve that problem by creating a fully automated AI-driven Lead Generation and Enrichment Pipeline capable of discovering, validating, and personalizing leads at scale. The workflow integrates SerpAPI, pandas, Clay, and GPT-4o, transforming raw search inputs into enriched, sales-ready profiles — all without manual intervention. The result: a modular, low-code system that delivers 90%+ enrichment accuracy, real-time webhook delivery, and scalable personalization — a true example of how Generative AI can operationalize business intelligence. Defining the Problem: Manual Lead Research Doesn’t Scale Traditional lead research involves visiting multiple sites, manually collecting LinkedIn or company data, verifying emails, and adding details to CRMs. Even with automation tools, data fragmentation and inconsistencies persist. Our goal was clear: Design a modular, API-driven pipeline that can autonomously collect, clean, enrich, and personalize leads at scale — using Generative AI as the connective tissue. To achieve this, the system needed to: 1. Collect leads via targeted Google SERP extraction. 2. Clean and normalize the results into structured formats. 3. Enrich each profile with verified emails, company data, and funding information. 4. Personalize outreach messages using GPT. 5. Deliver outputs seamlessly via webhooks into Clay for real-time visibility. System Architecture: From Search Term to Enriched Lead The pipeline was designed as a sequence of independent yet interlinked modules: 1️⃣ Search Term Definition — Why CSV? Using a CSV file made the pipeline modular and reproducible. Each row defines a persona + location combination (e.g., “AI founder San Francisco”), allowing batch experiments or easy scaling later. 2️⃣ SERP Collection — Why SerpAPI? Instead of writing a custom scraper for Google or Bing — which would break often — SerpAPI provides structured JSON access to search results with stable formatting and metadata. This made the system resilient to HTML changes and allowed faster iteration. 3️⃣ Data Processing — Why Pandas? Pandas handles cleaning, deduplication, and schema alignment in one place. It also enables quick CSV-to-JSON transformations that match the format Clay’s webhook expects. 4️⃣ Clay Enrichment — Why Clay? Clay acts as a meta-enrichment engine: it connects to multiple providers (Hunter, Dropcontact, Crunchbase, etc.) through one unified API. Instead of writing separate connectors for each service, Clay orchestrates everything — person, company, email, and funding enrichment — saving both time and cost. 5️⃣ AI Personalization — Why GPT-4.1-mini? After data enrichment, GPT-4.1-mini converts structured info into context-aware outreach notes. It’s lightweight, fast, and good enough for short contextual writing — ideal for a real-time pipeline. 6️⃣ Webhook Integration — Why Webhooks Instead of CSV Uploads? Direct JSON delivery to Clay removes manual steps and allows real-time debugging. This also makes the pipeline future-proof — the same webhook endpoint can send data to any CRM or automation tool. Overcoming Technical Challenges & Design Pivots Building the system revealed multiple integration challenges that demanded careful debugging, creative pivots, and iterative experimentation. 1️⃣ Markdown-First Extraction — Why it worked: Early HTML parsing attempts failed due to inconsistent markup and dynamic content across sites. Converting HTML → Markdown standardized structure and eliminated parsing errors. This elegant middle ground between raw scraping and full browser automation made GPT parsing stable and domain-agnostic. Impact: Parsing failures dropped to zero, and the pipeline became both leaner and easier to extend. 2️⃣ Webhook Automation & Schema Validation — Why it mattered: Initially, Clay uploads were manual CSV imports prone to mismatches. Automating delivery through webhooks created a real-time data stream between scripts and Clay. To ensure reliability, I added schema validation before every webhook call—preventing silent errors from minor field mismatches. Impact: Debugging became instantaneous, API credits were preserved, and the workflow scaled automatically without human intervention. 3️⃣ Sequential Waterfall Logic — Why it was efficient: Calling multiple enrichment providers in parallel seemed faster but wasted credits when one succeeded early. A waterfall sequence (stop after first success) optimized cost and accuracy while reducing redundant API calls. Impact: The pipeline balanced speed and cost with intelligent sequencing logic. 4️⃣ Minimal Viable Input — Why it was a turning point: Instead of fetching entire company profiles, the system now starts with a single LinkedIn URL. Clay automatically cascades person, company, and contact enrichment from that seed. Impact: Processing became faster and cheaper—shifting from brute-force enrichment to context-aware automation. 5️⃣ Reflection & Mock Mode — Why it improved iteration: Introducing a mock mode allowed testing logic without burning API credits, while a reflection loop enabled the system to self-check outputs and retry intelligently. Impact: These two tools made debugging safer, more affordable, and more adaptive under real-world data variability. 6️⃣ GPT-4o Vision Integration — Why it was transformative: When the original UI-TARS model became unavailable, switching to GPT-4o Vision unlocked multimodal reasoning directly from screenshots. Impact: This consolidated perception and logic into one engine, simplified architecture, and expanded automation possibilities far beyond the original scope. Results & Validation Once fully automated, the pipeline transformed a 2-hour manual process into a 3-minute AI-orchestrated workflow — a 40× productivity gain per batch of leads. Quantitative Outcomes: > 90 % enrichment success rate, measured as verified-email and company-data match accuracy across 100 randomly sampled profiles. Zero manual intervention after webhook integration. Average runtime: under 3 minutes per batch of 10 profiles. Operational cost reduction: ≈ 60 % fewer API calls via sequential waterfall logic. Qualitative Validation: Performance was benchmarked and reviewed under the guidance of Prof. Rohit Aggarwal, who provided iterative feedback on pipeline reliability, schema validation, and data-flow transparency. The combination of deterministic logic (pandas, validation scripts) and probabilistic reasoning (GPT-4o) proved to be the key to both scalability and trust. In business terms, the system frees up ~10 hours per week per analyst, improves consistency across outreach data, and scales instantly as new personas or markets are added — bringing AI automation from theory to tangible ROI. Key Learnings and Future Directions This project reinforced a critical insight: AI alone isn’t enough — structured integration makes it powerful. Combining deterministic modules (pandas, schema validation) with probabilistic reasoning (GPT) created a hybrid system that’s robust, cost-efficient, and transparent. Next steps: • Add a dashboard for error analytics. • Expand enrichment to multiple CRMs. • Integrate real-time alerts for schema drifts. • Extend markdown-first approach to other sources. Acknowledgements This project was completed under the mentorship of Professor Rohit Aggarwal through Mentor Students & Juniors, Inc. non-profit that connects academic learning with real-world application. Professor Aggarwal provided guidance in project design, tool selection, and technical direction, along with regular feedback on implementation and presentation. His structured support helped ensure the project stayed aligned with both educational and practical objectives. About the Author My name is Murtaza Shafiq. I’m currently pursuing an MS in Business Analytics & Information Management at Purdue University while contributing as a Data Science Consultant at AgReliant Genetics. There, I’m focused on optimizing supply chain operations — building stochastic models and Tableau dashboards to support executive decision-making. My background spans roles in SaaS, analytics consulting, and client-facing strategy. At EZO, I helped close Fortune 100 clients by aligning technical solutions with business needs. At AverLynx, I led cross-functional teams delivering data science projects — from A/B testing and forecasting to customer segmentation. I enjoy solving real-world problems through data and bring a mix of technical expertise (Python, SQL, Tableau, Power BI) and consultative experience to every project. I’m especially drawn to roles where data meets decision-making — where insights translate directly into impact. Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue.
5 min read
authors:
Murtaza ShafiqMurtaza Shafiq
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
From No-Code to LangGraph Agent: Automating Outbound Sales
Article
TL;DR Simple LLM conversions of n8n workflows fail silently due to recursion bugs, complex authentication issues, and flawed architectures. We solved this by building a resilient 8-guide "mega-prompt" framework that forces the LLM to analyze workflow complexity, choose the correct API paradigm (Functional vs. Graph), and engineer environment-aware authentication, resulting in a production-ready application. No-code platforms like n8n have revolutionized automation, enabling users to visually build complex workflows. Developers, however, often encounter a ceiling where they require more granular control, scalability, and cost-efficiency than a visual builder can offer. The logical next step is to migrate these visual workflows to a powerful, code-native framework, such as LangGraph. The "obvious" solution is to use a Large Language Model (LLM) to perform the conversion. However, a simple, direct translation often produces code that is brittle and fails under real-world conditions. This article is not just a tutorial. It is a case study on how to build a robust and resilient conversion framework. We will walk through the critical failures we discovered in a simple conversion—including recursion errors and authentication dead-ends—and detail the advanced, 8-guide "mega-prompt" system we engineered to solve them The Test Case: Automating Outbound Sales To pressure-test our conversion framework, we needed a complex, real-world scenario. We found a perfect example inspired by a Gumloop tutorial on YouTube: automating outbound sales. TUTORIAL: Automating Outbound Sales with AI Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxacz1_YHuo The Goal: Convert a simple list of company URLs into personalized outreach emails. This workflow is an ideal test case because it requires: Stateful Loops: Processing a list of items, one by one. Multiple API Calls : Scraping, contact lookup (Hunter.io), and email generation (OpenAI). Secure Authentication: Accessing Google Sheets and Gmail via OAuth. This combination of features is a perfect recipe for the exact kind of subtle bugs that plague simple LLM-generated code. This article is intended for developers, AI engineers, and technical managers who want to build reliable, production-grade applications from visual concepts. Brief Background: A Collaborative Journey This project began as a challenge from Professor Rohit Aggarwal to explore the systematic conversion of visual workflows into production-grade code. The professor provided the foundational challenge and a 3-step "base" prompt chain from prior work with students. This framework could translate n8n JSON into a Project Requirements Document (PRD), handle custom code, and generate an initial LangGraph implementation. My role was to apply this base framework to the "Outbound Sales" test case. In doing so, I quickly identified several critical, real-world failures: the generated code was brittle, falling into recursion loops (GraphRecursionError), and failing on Google authentication in any server environment (headless, WSL, or Docker). Furthermore, the framework's architecture was inflexible, always defaulting to a complex design, even when a simpler one would have been sufficient. Following high-level conceptual guidance from the Professor to adopt a modular architecture (adhering to DRY principles), I architected and authored the solutions. My primary contributions were: Engineering the 8-Guide "Mega-Prompt" System : I authored the eight comprehensive guides that steer the LLM, transforming the simple prompt into a robust framework. Solving the Architectural Flaw : I conceived of and implemented the paradigm-selection.md guide to force the LLM to choose between LangGraph's Functional and Graph APIs, solving the inflexible default. Fixing Critical Bugs : I engineered the "Graph Flow Analysis" prompt to fix the GraphRecursionError and authored the authentication-setup.md guide to solve the headless authentication maze. Creating the User-Facing Guide : I created the entire "Step 4" Environment Configuration guide from scratch to ensure that other developers with different environments could successfully run the final application. The Professor provided invaluable conceptual guidance and regular feedback throughout this process. The Initial Framework's Limits: Three Critical Failures When we applied the base framework to the "Outbound Sales" workflow, we encountered three critical failures immediately. These are the silent problems that turn a "90% complete" AI-generated script into a multi-day debugging session. Failure 1: The "One-Size-Fits-All" Architecture The base framework had a major architectural flaw: it always defaulted to a LangGraph Graph API, forcing even simple, linear workflows into a complex, stateful, recursive "controller node" pattern. This was inflexible, overly complicated, and the root cause of our next error. We needed a smarter framework that could choose the right tool for the job—a simple Functional API for most tasks and the Graph API only for complex workflows that truly required it. Failure 2: The Recursion Trap (GraphRecursionError) A direct result of the flawed architecture, the default "controller node" logic was buggy. When processing a list of companies, it would hit LangGraph's built-in recursion limit and crash. Using LangSmith to trace the execution, we found the bug: if the last company in the list failed a step (e.g., no email was found), the graph's state was never cleared. It would loop back to the controller node and endlessly re-process the same failed item, creating an infinite loop. Buggy Flow Screenshot from LangSmith See the Fixed Flow on LangSmith Failure 3: The Authentication Maze The generated code for Google Authentication used flow.run_local_server(). This method works perfectly on a local machine by automatically opening a browser window for user consent. However, it fails instantly and silently in any headless environment, including servers, Docker containers, or WSL. Worse, there is a common pitfall where developers use "Web application" credentials from the Google Cloud Console instead of "Desktop app" credentials. This leads to an impossible-to-debug redirect_uri error, completely halting the project. The Solution: Engineering a 4-Step Framework To overcome these issues, we designed a resilient, three-step prompt system. This architecture breaks down the problem into multiple prompts. Step 3 involves a single "Main Prompt" (acting as the orchestrator) and eight modular "Guides" (representing different "skills"). The Main Prompt is programmed to review all eight guides thoroughly before generating any code. This approach guarantees that the output is robust, aware of its environment, and architecturally sound. This robust framework allows us to systematically convert the n8n workflow. The first three steps generate the application, and the fourth step configures it to run. Step 1: Generate the Blueprint (PRD): ProductionRequirements.md First, we export the n8n workflow as a JSON file. We then use the ProductionRequirements.md to convert that JSON into a detailed, human-readable Project Requirements Document (PRD). This separates the platform's features from the specific business logic. Link to the file: ProductionRequirements.md Step 2: Handle Custom Logic (Optional) : Custom-Logic.md If the n8n workflow uses custom "Function" or "Code" nodes, we use the CustomLogic.md to analyze them and generate detailed requirements, ensuring no unique logic is lost. Link to the file: CustomLogic.md Step 3: Generate the LangGraph Code: MainOrchestratorPrompt.md This is the core step. We feed the n8n JSON (from Step 1) and any custom node requirements (from Step 2) into our MainOrchestorPrompt.md . The LLM reads our 8 Guides and generates a complete, robust, and environment-aware Python application. The Main Orchestrator Prompt This is the core prompt that orchestrates the entire conversion. It explicitly forces the LLM to read the guides, analyze the workflow, choose a paradigm, and cross-reference its own work against the guides. Link to the file: MainOrchestorPrompt.md # n8n to LangGraph Conversion Prompt ## Task Overview Convert the provided n8n JSON workflow into a LangGraph implementation. **All implementations must use LangGraph** - analyze workflow complexity to determine whether to use Functional API (`@entrypoint`) or Graph API (`StateGraph`). Maintain original workflow logic, data flow, and functionality. **CRITICAL FIRST STEP: Before analyzing the workflow, you MUST read ALL guide files in the `guides/` directory to understand implementation patterns, authentication requirements, API integration approaches, project structure standards, and testing methodologies.** ## Execution Process (Follow These Steps) ### Phase 1: Guide Review (MANDATORY FIRST STEP) 1. Read ALL guide files in the `guides/` directory: - `guides/paradigm-selection.md` - `guides/functional-api-implementation.md` - `guides/graph-api-implementation.md` - `guides/authentication-setup.md` - `guides/api-integration.md` - `guides/project-structure.md` - `guides/testing-and-troubleshooting.md` - `guides/output-requirements.md` 2. Understand paradigm selection criteria, implementation patterns, authentication requirements, API integration patterns, project structure standards, and testing approaches from the guides ### Phase 2: Workflow Analysis 3.Read and analyze the n8n JSON workflow 4. Scan n8n JSON for custom node placeholders pointing to `/req-for-custom-nodes/<node-name>.md` 5. Read all referenced custom node requirement files completely 6. Analyze workflow complexity using decision framework from guides ### Phase 3: Implementation Planning 7. Select implementation paradigm (default to Functional API with `@entrypoint` unless complexity requires Graph API with `StateGraph`) 8. Select execution pattern (default to Synchronous for simplicity unless async concurrency truly needed) 9. Plan custom node translations to Python functions appropriate for chosen paradigm and execution pattern ### Phase 4: Implementation 10. Create complete LangGraph implementation using proper decorators (`@entrypoint`/`@task` or `StateGraph`), parameters, and patterns from guides 11. Ensure sync/async consistency - if entrypoint is synchronous, all tasks must be synchronous with synchronous method calls; if entrypoint is async, all tasks must be async with await statements 12. Document all conversions with custom node traceability and documentation references ### Phase 5: Final Review 13. **MANDATORY FINAL GUIDE REVIEW** - Cross-reference implementation against all guides: - Paradigm selection guide - Implementation guide for chosen paradigm - Authentication setup guide - API integration guide - Project structure guide - Testing and troubleshooting guide - Output requirements guide 14. **CRITICAL**: Verify LangGraph decorators present and sync/async pattern consistent - NEVER plain Python without `@entrypoint` or `StateGraph`, NEVER mix sync entrypoint with async tasks The 8 Technical Guides These guides are the core "brain" of our framework. They provide the LLM with the expert knowledge required to build production-ready code. paradigm-selection.md This guide solves Failure 1. It forces the LLM to analyze the workflow's complexity and justify its choice between the simple Functional API or the more complex Graph API, breaking the inflexible "controller node" default. Link to the file: paradigm-selection.md graph-api-implementation.md This guide provides the correct method for building a StateGraph. Most importantly, it includes the "Graph Flow Analysis" section, which is our engineered solution to Failure 2. It forces the LLM to self-verify its own loop logic to prevent recursion traps. Link to the file: graph-api-implementation.md authentication-setup.md This guide is the direct solution to Failure 3. It provides explicit instructions for environment-aware authentication, including WSL/headless detection, manual fallbacks, and clear error messaging for the "Desktop app" credential problem. Link to the file: authentication-setup.md functional-api-implementation.md This guide provides the full implementation details for the simpler, non-graph alternative, ensuring consistency and best practices. Link to the file: functional-api-implementation.md api-integration.md This guide ensures that all external API calls are handled correctly, with a particular focus on data formats, which are a common source of errors. Link to the file: api-integration.md project-structure.md This guide enforces a clean, standard project layout, ensuring the generated code is maintainable and secure (e.g., by utilizing .env files). Link to the file: project-structure.md testing-and-troubleshooting.md This guide provides a comprehensive plan for testing and debugging, covering all the common failure modes we identified. Link to the file: testing-and-troubleshooting.md output-requirements.md Finally, this guide acts as a "checklist" for the LLM, forcing it to provide all necessary deliverables, including dependency lists and configuration files. Link to the file: output-requirements.md Step 4: Environment Configuration The generated code is runnable but requires configuration. This guide ensures a user can set it up correctly. 1. Create the .env file: Create a file named .env in the project's root directory. The LLM will have provided a .env.template (as per output-requirements.md) to use as a guide. 2. Obtain API Keys : The specific API keys you need will depend on the services used in your n8n workflow. The LLM will list the required environment variables in the .env.template it generates. For our "Automated Outbound Sales" use case, the following keys were required. You can follow this as an example for your own keys: OpenAI API Key: Navigate to https://platform.openai.com/api-keys . Create a new secret key and paste it as the value for OPENAI_API_KEY. Hunter.io API Key: Navigate to https://hunter.io/api-keys. Copy your API key and paste it as the value for HUNTER_API_KEY. 3. Google Authentication Setup (The Right Way): Enable APIs: Navigate to the Google Cloud Console. Select your project and go to "APIs & Services > Library". Enable the Google Sheets API and Gmail API. Create OAuth Credentials: Go to "APIs & Services > Credentials". Click "+ CREATE CREDENTIALS" and select "OAuth client ID". CRITICAL: The application type must be set to Desktop app. Selecting "Web application" will cause the redirect_uri errors we worked to prevent. Download the client configuration JSON file and save it as credentials.json in the project's root directory. First-Time Authentication: Run the Python script. The application (following our authentication-setup.md guide) will detect if it's in a headless environment and provide the correct instructions. If local, a browser will open. If on a server, it will print a URL to copy. Grant the application permissions. Upon success, a token.json file will be created. This token will be used for all future runs Key Insight: The "Generation Gap" While this framework successfully handles services like Google and OpenAI, we identified a limitation we call the "Generation Gap." If an n8n workflow uses a less common service, a proprietary internal tool, or a rapidly updated library, the LLM may not have sufficient training data. In these cases, the generated code is likely to be generic, outdated, or incorrect. It highlights that the more niche the tool, the more developer expertise is required to bridge the gap and manually refine the generated code. This is a challenge that could potentially be addressed by a solution like the Model Context Protocol, but this is a topic for later discussion. Conclusion and Key Takeaways This exploration evolved from a simple conversion exercise into a comprehensive examination of production readiness. The journey from a visual n8n workflow to a functional LangGraph application is not a single-shot conversion; it is a process of engineering for resilience. While LLMs are remarkably powerful code generators, our role as developers is to act as architects and quality engineers. We must guide them, anticipate real-world complexities, and engineer robust frameworks that solve for the inevitable edge cases. The leap from a simple prompt to a comprehensive, 8-guide system is the true "pro-code" leap, transforming a brittle script into a scalable application. Acknowledgements I would like to extend a sincere thank you to Professor Rohit Aggarwal for providing the opportunity, the foundational framework, and invaluable guidance for this project. Thanks also to the students whose initial work provided the starting point, and to the creator of the original Gumloop YouTube video for an inspiring and practical use case. About the Authors Hitesh Balegar is a graduate student in Computer Science (AI Track) at the University of Utah, specializing in the design of production-grade AI systems and intelligent agents. He is particularly interested in how effective human-AI collaboration can be utilized to build sophisticated autonomous agents using frameworks such as LangGraph and advanced RAG pipelines. His work spans multimodal LLMs, voice-automation systems, and large-scale data workflows deployed across enterprise environments. Before attending graduate school, he led engineering initiatives at CVS Health and Zmanda, shipping high-impact systems used by thousands of users and spanning over 470 commercial locations. Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue.
9 min read
authors:
Hitesh BalegarHitesh Balegar
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
Best AI Voices for Customer Support, Medical, Education, and Live Conversation Agents
Article
This is a comprehensive blind listening study comparing top text to speech models for real-world applications The Text to Speech (TTS) market is experiencing explosive growth, projected to reach between $9.3 billion and $12.4 billion by 2030, driven by advances in deep learning and increasing demand for accessible digital content. But, there is a problem, with tens of models and hundreds of voices and personalities, choosing the correct voice is very difficult. The choice can make a real difference as lack of emotion can instantly make the end users feel that the product is a poor implementation. This is the problem facing every product manager, developer, and designer working with conversational AI. Vendor marketing materials provide little differentiation—everyone promises the same thing. Provider documentation uses inconsistent terminology: what one calls "warm" another describes as "friendly," and a third labels "empathetic." And conducting real-world testing across all these options is prohibitively time-consuming. So we did the heavy lifting for you. In this study we compared voices and models from top TTS providers like Gemini, OpenAI, ElevenLabs, Polly, and Deepgram. We compiled our results and finding in this article which article gives you: Data-Backed Recommendations: Instantly find the best voices for customer support, medical, and education. Testing Tool: Use our open-source VoiceArena platform to test the top voices with your own scripts/text to generate voice for your specific application. TL;DR What we did: Blind listening comparison of 100+ voices across Gemini, ElevenLabs, OpenAI, Polly, and Deepgram Evaluated performance in Customer Support, Medical, Education, and Live Conversation scenarios Built VoiceArena, an open-source platform for side-by-side voice testing Top recommendations: Live Conversation : Ruth (Polly), Echo (OpenAI) Customer Support : Harmonia (Deepgram), Vesta (Deepgram) Education : Stephen (Polly), Sadaltager (Gemini) Medical : Harmonia (Deepgram), Shimmer (OpenAI) Key insights: Generative voice models (Polly's advanced lineup) significantly outperform standard neural voices Deepgram dominates customer support applications through strategic specialization Provider selection should consider technological trajectory, not just current quality Cost differences between providers are negligible compared to voice quality impact Test yourself: https://voicelmarena.vercel.app/ Contents Problem: The Voice Selection Problem Approach: How We Conducted the Blind Listening Study Findings: Top Voice Recommendations by Use Case References: References & Acknowledgements The Voice Selection Problem You need to choose a text-to-speech voice for your customer support system. You open the documentation for Amazon Polly and find 60+ voices. Google Cloud offers 40+ more. OpenAI has a dozen. ElevenLabs boasts hundreds. Each provider claims their voices are "natural," "expressive," and "human-like." Over the course of this research, We: Conducted blind listening tests across 100+ voices from five major providers Generated and evaluated audio samples for four critical real-world scenarios Built an open-source platform enabling anyone to replicate these tests Identified clear winners for customer support, medical, education, and live conversation applications What follows isn't marketing copy or vendor-provided specifications—it's the result of systematic listening, comparison, and analysis. More details about the experiment is below. Research Methodology: How We Conducted the Blind Listening Study Subjective evaluation of voice quality is inevitable—what sounds "natural" is ultimately a human judgment. But the methodology behind that evaluation can still be systematic, rigorous, and transparent. Provider Selection Who we tested: Google Gemini (text-to-speech API) ElevenLabs (specialized AI voice platform) OpenAI (GPT-4 with audio capabilities) Amazon Polly (AWS text-to-speech service) Deepgram (conversational AI voice platform) Why these providers: These represent the market leaders with robust API access, extensive voice catalogs, and demonstrated enterprise adoption. They span the spectrum from general-purpose cloud providers (AWS, Google) to specialized AI voice companies (ElevenLabs, Deepgram) to frontier AI labs (OpenAI). Voice catalog scope: All default voices from each provider were evaluated—approximately 100 voices total. This study excluded custom voice cloning, premium add-ons, or enterprise-only options to keep the comparison accessible and reproducible Scenario Design Rather than testing voices in isolation, We evaluated them within four critical real-world contexts: Context Use Case Sample Text Evaluation Focus Customer Support Apologetic responses, technical troubleshooting and empathetic problem-solving. "I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience... Let me walk you through the troubleshooting steps..." Does the voice convey genuine empathy and warmth while inspiring trust? Medical/Healthcare Prescription instructions, medication timing, and disease explanations. "Take this medication twice daily... Do not exceed the recommended dosage." Does the voice balance authority with approachability and deliver sensitive information clearly? Education Book dictation, answering student questions, and delivering instructional content. "The mitochondria is often called the powerhouse of the cell..." Does the voice maintain engagement during long content and emphasize key concepts naturally? Live Conversation/Agent Real-time dialogue, sentiment-adaptive responses, and short interactions. "Yes, absolutely!", "I'm not sure about that.", "Let me check on that for you." Can the voice shift emotional registers quickly and sound natural in brief exchanges? Evaluation Protocol To minimize bias and ensure objective comparison, We employed a blind testing methodology: Audio generation : Using VoiceArena, We generated audio samples for all 100 voices across each scenario's test scripts Randomization : Samples were shuffled so provider and voice name weren't visible during evaluation Listening sessions : Each voice was evaluated independently without knowing which provider it came from Primary criterion : Naturalness — Does this sound like a real human speaking? Are there artifacts, unnatural pauses, or robotic inflections? Secondary criterion : Emotional appropriateness — Does the tone match the context? Would this voice inspire the right response (trust, engagement, calm) in a real user? Round-robin selection : After initial listening, conducted multiple comparison rounds, systematically narrowing the field to identify the top two performers per scenario Key Findings: Top Voice Recommendations by Use Case After systematically evaluating 100+ voices across four key business scenarios, clear winners emerged. The table below provides our top recommendations at a glance. Results Summary Use this table to find the winning voice for your specific scenario Use Case Recommendation #1 Key Attributes Recommendation #2 Key Attributes Live Conversation/Agent Ruth (Polly) Highly expressive, adaptive, emotionally engaged, colloquial Echo (OpenAI) Warm, natural, friendly, resonant, conversational Customer Support Harmonia (Deepgram) Empathetic, clear, calm, confident Vesta (Deepgram) Natural, expressive, patient, empathetic Education Stephen (Polly) Assertive, knowledgeable, emotionally adept, near-human Sadaltager (Gemini) Knowledgeable, intelligent, articulate, well-informed Medical Harmonia (Deepgram) Empathetic, clear, calm, confident Shimmer (OpenAI) Soothing, neutral warmth, clear, non-intrusive Results Deep Dive: Live Conversation/Agent Context: Requires spontaneous, emotionally flexible voices for real-time dialogue. Winner: Ruth (Amazon Polly) Why it won : Unmatched emotional range and natural prosody. Handled colloquial phrases ("Got it!") convincingly, feeling responsive rather than scripted. (Note: This is a generative voice, representing Polly's next-gen tech). Best for : Real-time customer interactions, voice assistants, and phone-based agents. Runner-up: Echo (OpenAI) Why it won : Exceptional warmth and consistent friendliness. Less dynamic than Ruth, but its soothing, clear quality reduces listener fatigue. Best for : Applications where a steady, reassuring presence is key (e.g., wellness apps, onboarding). Customer Support Context: Must convey empathy, clarity, and authority to de-escalate tension. Winner: Harmonia (Deepgram) Why it won : A perfect balance of professionalism and warmth. The apology script sounded genuine, and its thoughtful, measured pacing builds trust. Best for : IVR systems, customer service bots, and escalation management. Runner-up: Vesta (Deepgram) Why it won : Highlights Deepgram's strategic focus on B2B conversational AI (both winners are theirs). Vesta is slightly warmer than Harmonia, making it ideal for friendlier, consumer-facing brands. Best for : Consumer-facing (B2C) support. Education Context: Must sustain engagement during long-form content and avoid monotony. 🥇 Winner: Stephen (Amazon Polly) Why it won : Sounds like a knowledgeable instructor, not a robot. Naturally emphasizes key terms and avoids "TTS fatigue" in long audio samples. (Note: Also a Polly generative voice). Best for : E-learning platforms, audiobook narration, and instructional videos. Runner-up: Sadaltager (Google Gemini) Why it won : Brings intellectual authority and gravitas. It sounds like a subject matter expert, making it highly credible. Best for : Higher education, academic, or technical content where formality is a plus. Medical/Healthcare Context: High-stakes; requires authority, clarity, and empathy to build trust. Winner: Harmonia (Deepgram) Why it won : Its customer support strengths (calm, clear, confident) translate perfectly. It delivers instructions with authority while remaining supportive and building patient confidence. Best for : Medication reminders, patient education, and telehealth interfaces. Runner-up: Shimmer (OpenAI) Why it's competitive : Offers "neutral warmth"—caring without being overly emotional. Its soothing, non-intrusive tone is excellent for delicate topics. Best for : Mental health applications, wellness check-ins, and delivering sensitive diagnostic news. About the Author I am a Data Scientist with 5+ years of experience specializing in the end-to-end machine learning lifecycle, from feature engineering to scalable deployment. I build production-ready deep learning and Generative AI applications , with expertise in Python, MLOps, and Databricks. I hold an M.S. in Business Analytics & Information Management from Purdue University and a B.Tech from a B.Tech in Mechanical Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Indore. You can connect with me on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/mayankbambal/ and I write weekly on medium: https://medium.com/@mayankbambal Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue. References & Acknowledgements Acknowledgements Prof. Rohit Aggarwal — For envisioning VoiceArena as an accessible, open-source testing platform that democratizes voice evaluation for non-technical users. His strategic vision shaped both the platform architecture and research methodology. MAdAiLab — For sponsoring API costs for the experimentation, without which we wouldn’t be able to do extensive testing. References Market Research & Industry Analysis: Verified Market Research. (2024). Text To Speech (TTS) Market Size, Share, Trends & Forecast. Projected market growth: $2.96B (2024) to $9.36B (2032) at 15.5% CAGR. Globe Newswire. (2024). Text-to-Speech Strategic Industry Report 2024. Market analysis projecting $9.3B by 2030, driven by AI-powered voice solutions. Straits Research. (2025). Text to Speech Software Market Size & Outlook, 2025-2033. Projected growth to $12.4B by 2033 at 16.3% CAGR. Voice Quality & Naturalness Assessment: Mittag, G., et al. (2021). Deep Learning Based Assessment of Synthetic Speech Naturalness. ArXiv:2104.11673. Established CNN-LSTM framework for TTS naturalness evaluation. WellSaid Labs. Defining Naturalness as Primary Driver for Synthetic Voice Quality. Industry framework for Likert-scale naturalness assessment (5-point scale). Softcery. (2025). AI Voice Agents: Quality Assurance - Metrics, Testing & Tools. Mean Opinion Score (MOS) benchmarks; scores above 4.0 considered near-human quality. TTS Technology & Trends: ArXiv. (2024). Towards Controllable Speech Synthesis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Survey. Analysis of emotion, prosody, and duration control in modern TTS systems. AI Multiple. (2023). Top 10 Text to Speech Software Comparison. Overview of deep learning advancements enabling human-like speech synthesis. TechCrunch. (2024). Largest text-to-speech AI model yet shows 'emergent abilities'. Discussion of scaling effects in generative voice models. Applied Research: Scientific Reports. (2025). Artificial intelligence empowered voice generation for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients. Medical applications of AI-generated voice. ScienceDirect. (2025). The Use of a Text-to-Speech Application as a Communication Aid During Medically Indicated Voice Rest. Clinical TTS evaluation study. Tags: #Text-to-Speech, #Speech-to-Text, #GenerativeAI, #ConversationalAI, #VoiceArena, #AIAgents, #MADAILABS
6 min read
authors:
Mayank BambalMayank Bambal
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
VoiceArena: Compare AI Voices across Google, AWS, ChatGPT, Elevenlabs & more on Your Data
Article
TL;DR Problem : Testing AI voice models manually across providers is time-consuming, non-scalable, and inaccessible to non-technical users Solution : VoiceArena provides a free, open-source comparison platform with side-by-side testing of 7+ STT/TTS providers Innovation : Round-trip workflow (text → speech → transcription) measures real-world accuracy loss using industry-standard WER/CER metrics Impact : Democratizes voice AI evaluation for product managers and researchers while driving industry transparency through objective benchmarks The Hidden Cost of Choosing the Wrong Voice Model Every product manager faces the same dilemma: which AI voice provider should we use? OpenAI's Whisper? Deepgram's Nova? Google's Gemini? The wrong choice costs time, money, and user trust. The typical testing workflow is broken. You copy text into one provider's dashboard, generate audio, download it, and listen. Then repeat for every provider. Comparing results side-by-side? Nearly impossible. Testing how well generated speech transcribes back to text? Forget about it. For non-technical users, this makes informed decisions nearly impossible. VoiceArena changes this . It's a free, open-source platform that lets anyone compare text-to-speech (TTS) and speech-to-text (STT) models from 7+ providers simultaneously — no coding required. Test multiple models in parallel, get real accuracy metrics (Word Error Rate, Character Error Rate), compare costs transparently, and validate round-trip performance where speech generation and transcription work together. Built for product managers, AI researchers, and content creators who need to evaluate voice AI without wrestling with API complexity or building custom testing infrastructure. Why This Matters Now The voice AI market is exploding. Text-to-speech is projected to grow from $2.96 billion in 2024 to $9.36 billion by 2032, driven by a 15.5% compound annual growth rate. Multiple sources forecast the market reaching $12.4 billion by 2033. This growth has created an explosion of providers: OpenAI, Deepgram, ElevenLabs, Google Gemini, Mistral, AssemblyAI, and more. Each claims superior quality. Each has different pricing models. Each excels at different use cases. The problem? Quality assessment traditionally requires technical expertise. Academic frameworks like Mean Opinion Score (MOS) benchmarks and CNN-LSTM naturalness evaluation models aren't accessible to most decision-makers. Product teams need systematic evaluation tools that democratize model comparison — letting them make data-driven choices based on objective metrics rather than marketing claims or convenience. From Concept to Open-Source Platform VoiceArena began three months ago as an independent study with Prof. Rohit Aggarwal. His vision was clear: create an accessible testing portal that democratizes voice evaluation for non-technical users. The initial concept was modest — a simple comparison tool for two STT models. The project evolved rapidly through iterative development cycles. Month one focused on core transcription testing with two models. Month two expanded to multiple STT providers with parallel processing architecture, growing to support seven major providers simultaneously. Month three added TTS generation capabilities, the round-trip workflow that tests both directions, and leaderboard analytics for performance rankings. What started as an independent study transformed into an open-source project with continuous development. New models are added regularly, and the platform now serves researchers, product teams, and developers evaluating voice AI at scale. Throughout development, Prof. Aggarwal provided conceptual guidance that shaped the platform's direction, while I handled all technical implementation and architecture. We consulted extensively with product managers to validate real-world use cases, ensuring the platform solved actual problems rather than theoretical ones. Quality assurance relied on manual testing and blind testing — comparing results without knowing which provider generated them to eliminate bias. The technical challenges were substantial. Parallel provider processing required handling seven different API formats simultaneously with isolated error handling. Implementing industry-standard WER and CER algorithms accurately demanded validation against research benchmarks. Vercel's serverless limits, audio format conversions across providers, and rate limiting all presented obstacles. The breakthrough came with session management architecture. This single insight made everything stable and controllable — enabling reliable experiment tracking across pages, supporting the round-trip workflow, and maintaining data integrity throughout complex user journeys. It transformed the platform from a fragile prototype into production-ready infrastructure. The research foundation draws on established frameworks: CNN-LSTM architectures for TTS naturalness evaluation, MOS benchmarks where scores above 4.0 indicate near-human quality, and industry-standard WER/CER metrics that provide objective accuracy measurements independent of subjective human ratings. How VoiceArena Works: Three Core Workflows Testing Speech Transcription The Listener page handles speech-to-text evaluation. Upload an audio file or record directly in your browser using the built-in recorder. Select which STT models to test — OpenAI's Whisper, Deepgram Nova-3, Google Gemini, Mistral Voxtral, or any combination. Click transcribe. The platform processes all selected models in parallel and displays results side-by-side: the transcription text, accuracy scores if you provided ground truth, processing time, and cost per minute. Word Error Rate and Character Error Rate give you objective quality measurements. Cost analysis shows exactly what you'd pay each provider. Use case: Which STT model best handles your specific accent, audio quality, or technical vocabulary? Run the same audio through five models and see the difference immediately. Testing Voice Generation The Speaker page generates synthetic speech. Enter your text and select TTS models — OpenAI's six voices, Deepgram Aura's eight voice models, or ElevenLabs' options. Click generate. Within seconds, you hear all the voices side-by-side. Play, pause, download, or compare audio quality directly. The platform shows generation time and cost per character for each provider. The key innovation: one-click transfer to transcription testing. Generate speech and immediately send it to the Listener page for round-trip validation. Use case: Does your generated speech transcribe accurately back to the original text? This reveals real-world performance beyond just “does it sound good?” Finding the Best Model The Leaderboard page aggregates performance data across all tests. Models rank by accuracy, processing speed, cost, and overall rating. Visual quadrant analysis charts plot cost versus WER, speed versus accuracy, helping identify the best value for your specific requirements. Filter by provider, features, or status. The leaderboard answers: What's the optimal model for my budget and quality needs? The Round-Trip Innovation This workflow reveals what other testing platforms miss. Generate speech on the Speaker page with your chosen TTS model. The system stores the original text as ground truth. Click "Transcribe" and the audio automatically transfers to the Listener page. Now run it through multiple STT models. The platform calculates how accurately the transcription matches your original text — measuring real-world accuracy loss through the complete cycle. A perfect TTS model that produces hard-to-transcribe speech isn't actually perfect. Round-trip testing exposes this. The Technical Foundation The architecture handles complex requirements while maintaining simplicity for users. Parallel processing tests seven providers simultaneously without cascading failures — if one API times out, the others continue unaffected. Each provider lives in an isolated error boundary. Industry-standard metrics provide credibility. The WER calculation uses the Levenshtein distance algorithm validated against academic research: (Substitutions + Insertions + Deletions) / Total Words. CER measures character-level accuracy. Both metrics enable objective comparison across providers without relying on subjective human judgment. The infrastructure adapts to different deployment scenarios. Production deployments use MongoDB for experiment tracking and AWS S3 for audio storage. Quick testing runs entirely in-memory without external dependencies. The session management system tracks experiments across pages using unique identifiers, maintaining data integrity through complex workflows. The "Bring Your Own Keys" model matters for transparency. The platform itself is completely free and open-source with no fees or markup. Users provide their own API keys and pay providers directly at standard published rates. An optional coupon system enables quick experiments without API setup for demos and trials. Every test shows exact costs before running, eliminating surprises. Real-World Impact VoiceArena addresses a transparency gap in the voice AI market. When model selection is difficult, decisions default to convenience — whichever provider you already use, or the one with the best marketing. Quality takes a backseat to familiarity. Systematic comparison raises the bar. Product managers can demand proof of performance before committing. Researchers get reproducible benchmarks. Content creators optimize for their specific use cases — audiobook narration requires different qualities than customer service bots. Providers benefit too. Objective benchmarks reward actual quality improvements over marketing claims. The best models rise in the leaderboard through performance, not persuasion. Building this platform taught hard lessons. Session management emerged as the architectural cornerstone — the insight that made complex workflows stable and reliable. Product manager feedback shaped practical features over technical sophistication; real users don't care about elegant code, they care about solving their evaluation problem efficiently. Blind testing revealed edge cases automated validation missed. When you don't know which provider generated a result, you evaluate quality honestly. Some providers excelled at clear speech but struggled with background noise. Others handled accents well but faltered on technical terminology. These insights only emerged through systematic, unbiased testing. The open-source approach enables community-driven improvement. As new models launch, contributors can add them quickly. As evaluation techniques improve, the community can enhance the metrics. No single company controls the benchmarks — the transparency is structural, not optional. What's Next VoiceArena is publicly available at github.com/mentorstudents-org/VoiceArena . The platform remains under active development with new models added regularly as providers release updates. Community contributions are welcome. Whether adding new provider integrations, improving accuracy algorithms, enhancing the UI, or expanding documentation — the open-source model thrives on diverse perspectives. The key takeaway: voice AI evaluation no longer requires technical expertise or custom tooling. Systematic comparison enables better decisions and drives industry-wide quality standards. Transparency benefits everyone — users get better products, providers compete on merit, and the market moves toward objective quality rather than marketing noise. About the Author I am a Data Scientist with 5+ years of experience specializing in the end-to-end machine learning lifecycle, from feature engineering to scalable deployment. I build production-ready deep learning and Generative AI applications , with expertise in Python, MLOps, and Databricks. I hold an M.S. in Business Analytics & Information Management from Purdue University and a B.Tech from a B.Tech in Mechanical Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Indore. You can connect with me on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/mayankbambal/ and I write weekly on medium: https://medium.com/@mayankbambal Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue. References & Acknowledgements Acknowledgements Prof. Rohit Aggarwa l — Conceptual vision for democratizing voice AI evaluation and strategic guidance throughout the platform's development journey MAdAiLab — API cost sponsorship and infrastructure support that enabled extensive provider testing across multiple models Product Manager Community — Real-world use case validation and feature prioritization feedback that shaped practical functionality References Market Research & Industry Analysis: Verified Market Research. (2024). Text To Speech (TTS) Market Size, Share, Trends & Forecast. Projected market growth: $2.96B (2024) to $9.36B (2032) at 15.5% CAGR. Globe Newswire. (2024). Text-to-Speech Strategic Industry Report 2024. Market analysis projecting $9.3B by 2030, driven by AI-powered voice solutions. Straits Research. (2025). Text to Speech Software Market Size & Outlook, 2025-2033. Projected growth to $12.4B by 2033 at 16.3% CAGR. Voice Quality & Naturalness Assessment: Mittag, G., et al. (2021). Deep Learning Based Assessment of Synthetic Speech Naturalness. ArXiv:2104.11673. Established CNN-LSTM framework for TTS naturalness evaluation. WellSaid Labs. Defining Naturalness as Primary Driver for Synthetic Voice Quality. Industry framework for Likert-scale naturalness assessment (5-point scale). Softcery. (2025). AI Voice Agents: Quality Assurance - Metrics, Testing & Tools. Mean Opinion Score (MOS) benchmarks; scores above 4.0 considered near-human quality. TTS Technology & Trends: ArXiv. (2024). Towards Controllable Speech Synthesis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Survey. Analysis of emotion, prosody, and duration control in modern TTS systems. AI Multiple. (2023). Top 10 Text to Speech Software Comparison. Overview of deep learning advancements enabling human-like speech synthesis. TechCrunch. (2024). Largest text-to-speech AI model yet shows 'emergent abilities'. Discussion of scaling effects in generative voice models. Applied Research: Scientific Reports. (2025). Artificial intelligence empowered voice generation for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients. Medical applications of AI-generated voice. ScienceDirect. (2025). The Use of a Text-to-Speech Application as a Communication Aid During Medically Indicated Voice Rest. Clinical TTS evaluation study. Tags: #VoiceArena #OpenSource #TextToSpeech #SpeechToText #AIVoiceModels #VoiceAI #ModelComparison #ProductManagement #AIResearch #MAdAILab
7 min read
authors:
Mayank BambalMayank Bambal
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
FinOps: n8n AI workflow for financial reconciliation
Article
AI can take a large portion of human-dependent work off your plate. No-code tools like n8n let non-technical teams actually put that lift to use. Combine the two, and you get a repeatable way to automate real accounting tasks without spending hours reading SDK documentation. Here’s the catch: n8n may be no-code, but non-technical users still have to translate a process into nodes, triggers, actions, and properties. With more than 800 connectors and dozens of configuration options per node, that mapping step is where most people get stuck. In this article, Professor Rohit Aggarwal and I show how a non-technical user can describe requirements in plain English, use AI to scaffold an n8n workflow, and end up with something that actually runs and can be audited. We use a common Finance and Accounting use case as the example - reconciling monthly ISO residuals with daily bank deposits. Whether you’re an AI enthusiast, manager, or student, the goal is simple: learn to automate repetitive work with AI and n8n without needing to master the entire platform first. What You’ll Learn in Five Minutes A requirements template that turns a messy process into clear inputs, outputs, and acceptance checks A prompt pattern to ask an AI model for a runnable first draft of an n8n workflow A method to generate synthetic CSVs that reproduce real-world reconciliation errors A short checklist to make your workflow reliable enough for Finance to trust Background Context I like building in loops: observe a messy process, reduce it to patterns, test against noise, and turn the working bits into a machine others can use. That’s how this started. I came across a LinkedIn post where an engineer automated ISO residual reconciliation in n8n. I rebuilt that workflow end to end for my own case. First, I wrote clear, hand-off-ready requirements - objective, inputs, outputs, and acceptance criteria. I separated platform capabilities from business configuration so nothing was implied. Then, I asked an AI assistant to scaffold n8n nodes from those requirements and generated synthetic ISO and bank files to break my assumptions before production. Professor Rohit Aggarwal guided the direction, set the clarity standard, and reviewed the drafts. The method below is the outcome. Step 1: Identify Common Reconciliation Errors with GPT Instead of asking for a bullet list, I treated the model like a research assistant. I described the two source files and asked for concrete rules and edge cases I could code. The most useful categories were: Amount mismatches beyond tolerance Missing transactions that never appear in the bank feed Duplicate payments that inflate received totals Timing differences where deposits land a day early or late Formatting or currency issues like decimal shifts or encoding surprises I also asked for quick property tests: if the difference is under X cents, match; if above X, classify as AMOUNT_MISMATCH with severity; if the date gap is within N days, mark as TIME_WINDOW instead of MISSING . Small checks like this keep everything grounded in behavior. Step 2: Generate Synthetic Data That Bites Waiting for real data slows teams. I created two CSVs that mimic finance files and deliberately added noise. ISO residuals with names, IDs, expected amounts, dates, and types — including decimal shifts, UTF-16 with BOM, and gzipped files to test encoding handling. Bank deposits mirroring ISO rows with realistic variation — one- or two-day date offsets, rounding differences, intentional duplicates, and similar amounts under different references to test matching logic. Each of the five error families had multiple examples, ensuring any rule that only worked on “pretty” data failed fast. Step 3: Write Requirements Before Touching the Tool Capabilities: How files are ingested, any CSV flavor parsed, rows matched, errors classified, results sent to Google Sheets, artifacts archived, and notifications triggered. Configuration: Bucket names and folder structures, tolerances for amount/date differences, sheet tabs, distribution lists, retries, and timeouts. Acceptance Checks: Run the workflow on one day’s folder, produce a summary of expected vs. received vs. variance, log all five error types, archive inputs and outputs with a manifest, and send an email only when severity crosses a threshold. If any stage fails, stop with a clear, contextual error. This level of specificity makes AI output safer - you’re grading against a contract, not intuition. Step 4: Use AI to Scaffold n8n from the Requirements I pasted the requirements into Claude and asked for a plain-language technical plan that maps directly to n8n: triggers, node list, data flow, error handling, security, retries, and timeouts. Then I requested draft node configurations - manual or webhook trigger, S3 downloads with correct region, CSV extraction with explicit encoding and compression, joins, reconciliations, writes to Sheets, email notifications, and S3 archiving. The draft wasn’t perfect, but it was a strong starting scaffold. I edited aggressively, removed overly clever expressions, and moved logic into function nodes for testability. The principle: speed with guardrails. Step 5: Build and Harden the n8n Workflow The workflow now runs on demand or on a schedule: pull ISO and bank files, normalize CSVs, join on stable keys with fallbacks, classify discrepancies, write summaries to Sheets, notify only when action is required, and archive all inputs and outputs by run. Common issues and lasting fixes: S3 region and path drift : standardize region and date-based paths so downloads never guess. Binary and encoding issues : avoid manual parsing; use CSV extraction with explicit encoding and compression. Schema mismatches : insert small schema checks between stages to fail fast with clear messages. Expression-mode surprises : keep expressions simple and push logic into function nodes. Once these were implemented, the workflow ran cleanly. The synthetic suite became a reliable safety net - any tweak to tolerances or mappings had to preserve correct classification across the five error families. Step 6: What You Can Reuse Tomorrow A one-page requirements template separating capabilities from configuration A prompt that converts those requirements into an initial n8n scaffold Synthetic CSVs you can tailor to your own banks and ISOs A reliability checklist: region, paths, encoding, schema checks, and minimal expressions Notes on Scope This article focuses on generating and hardening an n8n workflow from written requirements using AI. The next article in this series will explore converting an n8n workflow to LangGraph. Acknowledgments The direction for this financial reconciliation project originally came from Professor Rohit Aggarwal , who shared the initial article and encouraged me to explore automation for this specific use case. His feedback shaped the framework and kept the project practical. The first inspiration to try n8n for ISO residual vs. bank deposit matching came from a LinkedIn post by Martha Kruk , who demonstrated a clean, workable approach. Any clarity here comes from that combination of spark and structure - the voice is mine, but the discipline belongs to the mentors who keep me grounded. About the Author I’m Yash Kothari, a graduate student at Purdue studying Business Analytics and Information Management. Before Purdue, I spent a few years at Amazon leading ML-driven catalog programs that freed up $20M in working capital, and more recently built GenAI automation pipelines at Prediction Guard using LangChain and RAG. I enjoy taking complex systems whether it’s an AI model or a finance workflow and turning them into simple, repeatable automations that actually work in the real world. Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue.
4 min read
authors:
Yash KothariYash Kothari
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
AI-Powered Automation: n8n-make.com-gumloop to LangGraph
Article
The Gateway Drug of Automation No-code platforms like n8n, Make.com, and Gumloop are brilliant at one thing: getting people to think in systems. You don't need to understand OAuth flows, async functions, or REST architecture. You just drag, drop, and connect. Suddenly, you're watching data move between Slack, Google Sheets, and OpenAI. You build a "GPT-powered content summarizer" in twenty minutes. It works. It's addictive. More importantly, it teaches you automation thinking—understanding what can be systematized, where logic flows, and which tasks actually need human judgment. For beginners and even experienced builders testing ideas quickly, no-code is invaluable. It demystifies the concept that "code is magic" and makes automation feel accessible. But there's a hidden cost to that accessibility The Three Walls You'll Eventually Hit 1. The Complexity Wall: When Visual Becomes Invisible What starts as an elegant flowchart becomes an impenetrable maze. Nesting conditionals, loops, and sub-workflows turns your canvas into spaghetti. Debugging means clicking through dozens of nodes trying to remember what "Node 47" was supposed to do. There's no real stack trace, no type checking, no way to jump to where the error actually occurred. The visual metaphor that made automation accessible now makes it opaque. 2. The Scale Wall: When "It Works" Isn't Enough Performance degrades fast. Every node is isolated, serialized, and constantly writing state to a database. What runs fine with 10 operations chokes at 100. Want to process things in parallel? Good luck. Need to handle load spikes? You're stuck refreshing the browser hoping it finishes. Worse, there's no real version control. Your entire workflow lives in a JSON blob that's nearly impossible to diff or roll back. When something breaks after an API update or a colleague's "small change," you're doing archaeology, not debugging. 3. The Evolution Wall: When You Need to Move Faster The real killer is that your automation can't grow with you. There's no dependency management, no module system, no way to share logic across projects. Need that same "AI summarization" function in five different workflows? You copy-paste nodes and hope they stay in sync. And here's the kicker: AI coding assistants can't help you. They can't "see" into visual flows or reason about node configurations. While developers using LangChain or LangGraph get AI copilots that refactor, optimize, and extend their work, you're still manually clicking and dragging. Your automation becomes a liability when you can't iterate on it as fast as your ideas evolve. The Shift: From Automation Toy to Production System Moving to code isn't about complexity for its own sake—it's about regaining control. When you rebuild workflows in Python, TypeScript, or frameworks like LangGraph, you trade the visual metaphor for three fundamental upgrades: Control and Clarity. Real debugging tools, stack traces, unit tests, and logging. Git version history that actually works. Code reviews that catch problems before deployment. The ability to understand what broke and why—not just guess which node misbehaved. Performance and Scale. True async execution, concurrency, caching, and queuing. The ability to deploy across distributed systems or serverless functions. Engineering problems with engineering solutions, not UI limitations. Evolution and Collaboration. Reusable modules you can package and share. AI assistants that can refactor, extend, and optimize your code. Integration with DevOps pipelines, monitoring systems, and enterprise security standards. The ability to move as fast as your thinking. Agentic frameworks like LangGraph This is where LangGraph becomes particularly interesting—you define nodes, edges, and data flow, but with the transparency and power of a codebase. You can visualize execution, integrate LLMs, and scale across distributed systems, all while keeping your logic in Git. Bridging the Gap: AI-Powered Migration While the conceptual leap from n8n to LangGraph is clear, doing it manually can be tedious. This is where modern AI models — particularly Claude Opus and similar reasoning-focused systems — become invaluable. These models can parse n8n’s dense JSON exports, interpret logic chains, and generate both documentation and runnable LangGraph code. In effect, they act as system analysts and software architects, bridging human understanding and code-level precision. By pairing human oversight with structured AI prompting, teams can turn existing n8n workflows into stable, maintainable LangGraph backends without rewriting everything from scratch. The process can be broken down into three critical stages. Step 1: Generate a Project Requirements Document (PRD) This is the foundation. The goal here is to deconstruct the n8n JSON workflow and translate it into a structured, human-readable technical blueprint. Using an AI tool like Claude, you feed it the exported workflow JSON and guide it through an engineered prompt designed to: Identify the workflow’s global purpose, triggers, and data flow. Extract every node’s function, dependencies, and interconnections. Clarify all API interactions, credentials, and transformation logic in plain English. Separate platform features (what n8n provides) from business-specific configurations (what the user implemented). The output is a prd.md file — a full technical specification describing what the workflow does, how it’s structured, and what needs to exist in code. Here is the step-by-step process to implement Step 1: Open Claude Opus 4.1 or any big LLM) and create a new Cursor project folder (for example, n8n-to-langgraph-sales-automation ). Inside that project, make a docs/ directory to store generated specifications. Copy the exported n8n workflow JSON, then paste it into Claude using Ctrl+Shift+V (this preserves JSON formatting). Use a structured analysis prompt (already proven to work for n8n-to-code conversion) — it directs Claude to: Separate platform logic from business logic, Enumerate workflow triggers, execution rules, and node mappings, Translate every node’s configuration into human-readable requirements. Save Claude’s output as docs/prd.md — this becomes your technical foundation for the LangGraph build. This document becomes your contract between design and implementation — it’s where ambiguity dies before a single line of LangGraph code is written. Step 2: Generate Requirements for Custom Nodes Not all workflows are made from standard n8n nodes — some include “Function” or “Code” nodes that hold business logic. These custom nodes are the hardest to translate because their behavior isn’t abstracted; it’s handwritten logic. Here, Claude again acts as an analyst. You feed it each custom node’s source code, and it outputs detailed technical requirements describing: The node’s purpose , inputs, outputs, and logic flow. Dependencies and error handling strategies. Equivalent Node.js or Python strategies for future translation. Here is the step-by-step process to implement Step 2: Identify all Function or Code nodes in your exported n8n JSON — these are custom. For each one, copy its code and create a new file in your Cursor project under /req-for-custom-nodes/<node-name>.md . . Use Claude Opus 4.1 again with the custom-node analysis prompt. Paste the node’s code after the prompt (using Ctrl+Shift+V ). Claude will output structured requirements, documenting: Purpose, input/output formats, and dependencies, Step-by-step transformation logic, Error handling and Node.js/Python equivalent strategy. Save these outputs — they act as the design contract for rebuilding custom logic in LangGraph. Each analysis gets saved in the /req-for-custom-nodes/ directory, giving you a modular breakdown of all the unique components your LangGraph implementation will need. This makes the eventual code generation deterministic — the AI won’t have to guess what custom nodes do; it will already have clean requirements to work from. Step 3: Generate the LangGraph Code Once the PRD and custom node specs exist, the final step is orchestration. This is where Claude — or another large-context model — reads the PRD, the workflow JSON, and all requirement files, then builds a runnable LangGraph Python application. The process is engineered into five phases, each validated by guide files that enforce quality and consistency: Guide Review: The AI reads standard implementation guides to understand patterns and constraints — how to pick paradigms, structure code, handle authentication, and enforce sync/async consistency. Workflow Analysis: It scans the n8n JSON and cross-references the PRD to map every node and trigger into code components. Implementation Planning: The model decides whether to use the Functional API ( @entrypoint ) or Graph API ( StateGraph ) based on complexity. Implementation: It generates fully decorated LangGraph code — with clear function structure, state management, and modular logic. Final Review: The model validates its work against all guides, ensuring completeness and compliance with project standards. Here is the step-by-step process to implement Step 3: Open the Cursor IDE inside your project directory. In a new file, paste the LangGraph generation prompt provided for Step 3. Attach your inputs: The original n8n JSON (copied from export), The docs/prd.md requirements file, All custom node specs from /req-for-custom-nodes/*.md . Run the prompt inside Claude or Cursor’s Claude-integrated chat. Claude reads all referenced materials, determines whether to use the Functional API ( @entrypoint ) or Graph API ( StateGraph ), and outputs runnable LangGraph code. Save this output as a Python file (for example, main.py ) within your Cursor project. The result is production-ready LangGraph code — a system that preserves the original workflow’s logic but gains all the benefits of real code: testability, performance, version control, and AI extensibility. The Big Picture This three-step process transforms brittle, GUI-bound automations into transparent, maintainable software. AI acts not as a code generator, but as a translator of intent — turning n8n’s visual logic into a real backend architecture. It’s not about automating the automation; it’s about evolving it — from point-and-click flows to code that can think, adapt, and scale. About the Author Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor, AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue.
8 min read
authors:
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
Why No-Code Isn't Always No-Stress: The Real Challenges of Building AI Workflows in n8n
Article
📊 Key Findings from the pilot of 50+ n8n Implementations: 32–38% of workflows fail due to incomplete requirements Non-technical users underestimate learning curve by 2.2-2.8x Traditional AI-generated n8n code has 50-60% success rate n8n-MCP approach achieves 85-90% deployment success User abandonment: 60% → 28% Average time savings: 12-14 hours per workflow — Dr. Rohit Aggarwal, based on enterprise automation research The rise of no-code tools like n8n has promised to democratize automation—putting workflow orchestration, API integration, and even AI capabilities into the hands of non-developers. But when you peel back the shiny drag-and-drop interface, reality hits: these tools are closer to visual programming than true no-code. For anyone trying to build AI-enabled automations without a technical background, the learning curve can feel less like empowerment and more like a slow-motion crash course in software engineering. Let’s break down why. The First Wall: Identifying Workflow Requirements Humans are creatures of habit. Over time, work becomes second nature, and people often can’t recall every step they take to complete a task. When asked to ‘map out your process,’ they describe only the visible actions — while skipping the subconscious checks and micro-decisions that make their work reliable. Consider an HR coordinator automating candidate screening: "When a resume arrives, extract qualifications and send them to hiring managers." Simple? What about PDF versus DOCX formats? Scanned images? Typos in critical fields—auto-reject or flag for review? Does "immediately" mean real-time or daily batches? These aren't edge cases—they're normal operational reality that experienced professionals handle instinctively but struggle to articulate. Even before touching n8n, they need help identifying what should be automated and why. Otherwise, they’re automating an incomplete picture of reality. The Second Wall: Visual Programming Disguised as No-Code Even after identifying requirements, users hit the most frustrating barrier: translating human task logic into n8n’s technical constructs. It’s easy to underestimate the technical depth involved: Nodes : Each type (trigger, action, logic, code, AI) behaves differently. Triggers : Webhooks and schedules sound simple—until you are knee-deep in HTTP headers and cron syntax. Expressions : These are mini JavaScript scripts hiding inside the “no-code” experience. Connectors : ~1,200 integrations sound empowering—until you face API keys, payload formats, and rate limits. The sheer range of options increases both complexity and the learning curve. Then comes the real headache: figuring out which combination of nodes, connections, and properties actually replicates manual processes. Should validation live in IF nodes, Switch nodes, Function nodes, or AI nodes? How does data pass between them? Why does a simple “check if person is in database” require chaining HTTP Request, Function, and IF nodes? The typical marketing pitch of no-code tools is that you can just drag and drop to automate workflows. What users actually discover is that tools like n8n don’t remove technical complexity—they shift it from code syntax to a low-code, prettier UI. Analysis of a pilot involving over 50 enterprise projects shows that around 60% of non-technical users abandon automation efforts within the first few days, primarily due to difficulty translating requirements into functional workflows. When AI Becomes the Obvious Answer to create n8n Workflows (And Why It Usually Fails) Faced with these walls, the solution seems obvious: leverage AI to bridge gaps. Modern language models understand natural language, possess n8n knowledge, and can generate code that can be imported in n8n. A straightforward solution can be: Describe your process to AI in plain English Ask AI to generate complete workflow JSON Import JSON into n8n and deploy This approach is seductive—skip learning n8n's interface, avoid conceptual mapping, let AI handle translation. Just chat with AI, get code, deploy. Except this direct approach has critical flaws making it unreliable for real-world automation. The Core Limitation: When AI Works from Outdated Blueprints While Claude demonstrates remarkable code generation capabilities, it faces two fundamental limitations for n8n workflows. First: Outdated connector knowledge . AI models train on data till certain date—Claude's cutoff is January 2025. Meanwhile, n8n actively develops with regular connector additions, updates, and deprecations. Claude might suggest non-existent connectors, miss newer integrations, recommend HTTP workarounds when native connectors exist, or reference old names. Second: Obsolete node properties . n8n frequently updates schemas—properties get renamed, fields deprecated, new required parameters added, authentication methods changed. Without current definitions, Claude generates JSON with non-existent properties, missing required fields, outdated authentication, or wrong data structures. Testing across a pilot of 50 workflow attempts found that traditional AI-generated n8n code successfully deployed in roughly 50–60% of cases, with the remainder requiring manual debugging for connector or property mismatches. For non-technical users, this defeats the purpose. You import JSON expecting success but face cascading red error indicators. Properties are invalid. Connections fail authentication. Data transformations throw errors. You've traded learning n8n's complexity for debugging AI code you don't understand. This is where most "just use AI" implementations stall—in the gap between AI's outdated knowledge and n8n's current reality. The Breakthrough: Grounding AI in Real-Time n8n Data The solution isn't abandoning AI assistance—it's giving AI access to current, authoritative information about your actual n8n instance n8n-MCP (Model Context Protocol) acts as a real-time bridge between Claude and your n8n installation, providing: Live connector inventory : Exact integrations available in your version Current node schemas : Up-to-date property definitions, required fields, data types Version-specific accuracy : Configuration matching your deployed instance Real-time validation : Verification that generated code matches reality This transforms Claude from educated guesser into a more reliable, context-aware assistant. By grounding Claude in real-time data, we eliminate the "hallucination gap" breaking most auto-generated workflows. Big shout out to Romuald Czlonkowski for open sourcing n8n-mcp. 📊 The Impact: Success rate: 50–60% → 85–90% Time per workflow: 15–20 hours → 6–8 hours User abandonment: 60% → 28% Based on a pilot of 50 workflow generation tests A Systematic Approach: Breaking Down Complex Code Generation While n8n-MCP provides latest node information, asking Claude to directly generate complex workflows while simultaneously querying MCP proves unreliable. Instead, we separate information gathering from code generation through a systematic five-step process. For a deeper dive into the exact prompts and a practical demonstration of this five-step process, we encourage readers to explore a follow-up article. This article details a project that showcases tagging new emails in Gmail, categorizing them with an LLM, saving the details in MySQL, and then sending a notification to a Slack channel. We extend our gratitude to Shubham Raut for his invaluable contribution to this project, where he also did a lot of experimentation and helped improve the prompt in Step 3 Step 1: Collaborative Requirement Clarification Structured prompting engages domain experts in dialogue, asking targeted questions about triggers, decision points, and failure paths. If a user provides inadequate answers, it can intelligently rephrase questions, present clarifying examples to guide the user, and even offer questions in the form of multiple-choice or yes/no options. This approach helps to elicit more complete and accurate information, ensuring that all implicit knowledge is surfaced and preventing the 32–38% of failures that stem from incomplete or ambiguous requirements. Step 2: Generate Node List from Requirements With clarified requirements, we query n8n-MCP to identify which current nodes match needed functionality. The prompt outlines a structured process for designing n8n workflows. Break the requirements into clear, logical steps describing what the workflow needs to do. Map those steps to n8n nodes, using n8n-mcp to retrieve up-to-date node information and select the most suitable native connectors, justifying any custom or generic ones. Rather than Claude guessing based on its old training data, n8n-MCP returns nodes based on the latest n8n information. Review and refine the design to ensure every requirement is covered, the logic flows correctly, and the node choices follow best practices. This eliminates speculative planning. When a user needs "monitor Notion database for new pages and send Slack notifications," n8n-MCP confirms exact available components, preventing the 40–50% of deployment issues linked to outdated or mismatched connector information. Step 3: Extract Node Properties via n8n-MCP For each identified node, we query n8n-MCP for complete current property schemas: Authentication requirements and credential structures All parameters with current names and types Required versus optional fields Default values and validation rules Accepted data formats This property-level precision prevents the cascade of errors from deprecated fields, missing parameters, or wrong data types. For example, when we extract Slack Send Message node properties, we know precisely what they're named, which are required, and what formats they accept. Step 4: Generate Workflow with Property Context Now we ask Claude to generate n8n JSON—but provide extracted node properties as context. Claude no longer guesses properties from stale training data. Instead, it builds workflows using the exact current schemas we retrieved. This separation of concerns—information gathering via n8n-MCP, then code generation by Claude with that information—dramatically improves reliability. Claude focuses on workflow logic and structure while working from authoritative specifications. Step 5: Securely Inject Credentials Finally, a dedicated prompt accepts API keys and securely injects them into appropriate credential fields within generated JSON, ensuring workflows are fully functional without exposing secrets or requiring manual key entry across nodes. The outcome : Deployment-ready automation in 6–8 hours with 85–90% success rates. What This Means for Real-World Automation This systematic approach breaks through both walls that block non-technical users from successfully automating their work. Wall 1 — Incomplete requirements: Structured prompting surfaces the implicit knowledge professionals rely on but rarely document. It forces clarity on decision paths, exception handling, and timing rules—transforming vague goals into executable logic. Wall 2 — Technical complexity and conceptual mapping: By grounding the AI assistant in live n8n data through MCP, users no longer need to reverse-engineer API schemas or guess at node properties. The system handles syntax and validation while the user focuses on describing intent. Across pilots and training programs, the impact was consistent: users built production workflows—ranging from 5-node task automations to 50+-node enterprise orchestrations—without formal programming experience. Most participants reached deployable results within a single workday. The significance goes beyond time savings. When the tooling becomes transparent, users shift from “trying to make n8n work” to “designing how their business should operate.” That cognitive change—ownership of process, not just automation—is where the true democratization of workflow design begins. Note: The figures cited reflect results from a pilot study of over 50 enterprise automation projects conducted in 2025. While indicative of key trends, these findings should be interpreted as directional rather than statistically definitive. Frequently Asked Questions 1️⃣What is n8n? n8n is an open-source workflow automation tool that lets you connect different apps and services together to automate tasks. Think of it as a way to create "if this, then that" workflows between your various software tools. For example, you could set up a workflow where whenever someone fills out a form on your website, n8n automatically adds their information to your CRM, sends them a welcome email, and creates a task in your project management tool - all without you having to do anything manually. What makes n8n stand out is that it's self-hostable (you can run it on your own server), has a visual workflow editor that makes it easy to see how everything connects, and supports hundreds of integrations with popular services like Slack, Google Sheets, GitHub, databases, and many more. It's similar to tools like Zapier or Make (formerly Integromat), but being open-source means you have more control and flexibility. The name "n8n" is a play on "n-eight-n" or "nodemation" (node automation), since workflows are built by connecting different nodes together in a visual interface. It's become quite popular among developers and businesses who want to automate repetitive tasks or build complex integrations between their tools. 2️⃣What’s the biggest challenge with no-code tools like n8n for non-technical users? Despite the promise of “no-code,” tools like n8n still require structured logic and technical precision. Users think in habits (“check Slack, then update a sheet”) — not workflows. Translating that intuition into triggers, conditions, and data transformations demands a level of system thinking closer to programming than most expect. 3️⃣Why do AI-generated n8n workflows often fail? Traditional AI models generate workflows from outdated snapshots of n8n’s ecosystem. Connectors change, node properties get renamed, and authentication formats evolve. The result: JSON that looks correct but fails validation or breaks on import. Testing shows success rates of only 50–60% without live context. 4️⃣What is n8n-MCP and why does it matter? n8n-MCP (Model Context Protocol) lets the AI assistant access your n8n instance in real time — including connector inventory, node schemas, and property definitions. That grounding eliminates guesswork and ensures generated workflows actually match your deployed environment. 5️⃣How much time does this approach save in practice? Based on pilots across 50+ enterprise projects, MCP-assisted workflow generation cut build time from 15–20 hours to 6–8 hours on average — roughly a 60% improvement — while boosting deployment success rates from 50–60% to 85–90%. 6️⃣ Can non-developers really build complex AI automations with this setup? Yes. With structured prompting and MCP integration, non-technical professionals successfully built and deployed workflows ranging from 5-node task automations to 50+ node enterprise orchestrations — often in a single workday. The focus shifts from coding to designing logic. 7️⃣What’s the learning curve compared to traditional methods? It’s still a learning curve, but far gentler than scripting or API-first integration. Once users understand how data moves between nodes, their productivity spikes. Most reach deployable workflows within one day, instead of weeks of trial and error. 8️⃣How does n8n compare to Zapier or Make.com? Zapier and Make are simpler for basic use cases but hit walls fast when workflows need logic branching, AI integration, or custom APIs. n8n is more technical — but also more powerful, open-source, and better suited for enterprise-scale or AI-driven automation. 9️⃣What types of workflows have been built using this method? Examples include: AI-driven email classification and tagging CRM enrichment and lead routing HR candidate screening automation Financial report generation Multi-app orchestration (e.g., Gmail → LLM → MySQL → Slack) These span from lightweight automations to fully integrated business processes About the Author Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue.
8 min read
authors:
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
MCP vs. Function Calling: How Customers and Teams Can Self-Serve Without Engineers
Article
You Will Learn:You Will Learn: You Will Learn: How MCP servers (like Google Ads MCP) let customers use services directly from AI interfaces without coding. How internal teams can self-serve information through MCP, reducing reliance on engineers. The basics of Function Calling and MCP — what they are and how they work. The key differences between Function Calling and MCP, and what changes when customers implement tools themselves. The main limitations and challenges of adopting MCP in real-world systems. Modern AI applications often need to interact with external tools, APIs, and data sources. These systems usually involve two key components: The LLM (Large Language Model) — the reasoning engine that interprets user input and generates structured instructions or text responses (e.g., ChatGPT-4.1, Claude Sonnet, Gemini 2.5, Qwen 3). The LLM Controller Layer — the software layer that connects to the LLM via API, manages conversation state, and orchestrates tool or API execution. Controllers include applications such as ChatGPT web app (chat interface), OpenWebUI, Claude Desktop, Cursor IDE, and Claude Code. The LLM itself never executes code or calls APIs directly. It only suggests what should happen. The controller interprets those suggestions and decides how and when to carry them out. Two complementary mechanisms enable this collaboration: Function Calling – the foundational mechanism where the LLM suggests structured function calls that the controller executes. Model Context Protocol (MCP) – an open infrastructure standard built on top of function calling that allows the LLM controller to dynamically discover and connect to tool servers. This tutorial explains both concepts, how they relate, and when to use each. Function Calling Function calling allows a model to suggest a structured function call (function name and arguments), while the LLM controller executes it. The LLM model never runs code or calls APIs. It simply proposes what function to call and with what arguments. The controller interprets those suggestions, and performs the actual execution. Process Overview 1. Function Definition: You provide the model with a list of available functions, typically defined in JSON schema format that includes: Function name Description of what the function does Parameters it accepts (with types and descriptions) Expected return format You provide this list as a separate structured API parameter (e.g., tools parameter in OpenAI or Anthropic APIs), and you include it in every API request. For example, you might describe a list of functions like get_weather , get_traffic_status , send_email , etc. This is like giving the model a "menu" of capabilities—you're describing what's possible, not executing anything yet. 2. Model Analysis: When the user sends a message (e.g., "What's the weather in London?"), the model inspects the available function definitions and determines whether external data is needed. 3. Tool Call Suggestion: The model emits a structured "call" containing: The function name it wants to call (e.g., get_weather ) The arguments to pass (e.g., {"location": "London, UK", "units": "celsius"} ) This is formatted according to the LLM provider's specific schema (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.) This is only a suggestion, not actual execution. The model is saying “I think you should call this function with these parameters.” 4. Controller Execution: Your LLM controller receives this suggestion, parses it, and runs the actual function implementation. This might involve: Calling external APIs (weather services, databases) Performing computations Accessing file systems or other resources The controller is responsible for error handling, authentication, security, and returning valid results 5. Result Formatting: The controller returns the function output to the model as a message with a special role ( tool or function ). 6. Final Response: The model receives the tool result, incorporates it into its context, and generates a natural language response for the user: "The current weather in London is partly cloudy with a temperature of 15°C." Model Context Protocol (MCP) Model Context Protocol is an open standard (created by Anthropic) that defines a client–server protocol for connecting AI models to external tools and data sources in a unified, scalable way. Core Components MCP Server: Hosts tools that can complete certain tasks upon called. Example: A server exposing a get_orders tool that returns a customer’s last five orders. MCP Client: Integrated into the LLM controller. The client: Connects to one or more MCP servers Discovers available tools dynamically Routes tool calls to the correct server Manages the communication between the model and tools Example: Google Ads Tools Let us consider another example but this time let us take a real meaningful example. Google recently enabled an Google Ad MCP server for marketers exposing tools such as: execute_gaql_query , get_campaign_performance , get_ad_performance . Let’s compare what engineers would need to do with and without MCP. Without MCP (Using Function Calling) Step Action Notes 0 Engineering team creates and configures functions in OpenWebUI Functions: execute_gaql_query , get_campaign_performance , get_ad_performance . 1 User starts chat session OpenWebUI loads and sends function definitions with each API request to LLM 2 User types a message in the chat interface and asks an informational question e.g., "What is function calling?" 3 OpenWebUI sends user's message + function list to LLM API. { "messages": [ {"role": "user", "content": "What is function calling?"} ], "tools": [ {"type": "function", "function": {"name": "execute_gaql_query", "description": "...", "parameters": {...}}}, {"type": "function", "function": {"name": "get_campaign_performance", "description": "...", "parameters": {...}}},... ] } 4 ChatGPT answers question from its internal knowledge ; no function calling needed. ChatGPT returns response: {"role": "assistant", "content": "Function calling allows AI models..."} 5 OpenWebUI receives response from ChatGPT and displays response OpenWebUI displays ChatGPT's response and conversation continues 6 User asks a question requiring external data e.g., "Show campaign performance for last month." 7 OpenWebUI sends updated conversation with same tools. {"messages": [ {"role": "user", "content": "What is function calling?"}, {"role": "assistant", "content": "Function calling allows AI models..."}, {"role": "user", "content": "Show campaign performance for last month"} ], "tools": [...]} 8 ChatGPT suggests calling get_campaign_performance with appropriate date parameters {"role": "assistant", "content": null, "tool_calls": [{"id": "call_abc123", "type": "function", "function": {"name": "get_campaign_performance", "arguments": "{"start_date": "2025-09-01", "end_date": "2025-09-30"}"}}]} 9 OpenWebUI executes get_campaign_performance with the suggested date parameters and receives the campaign data. UI shows intermediate state indicating function execution in progress. Calls function get_campaign_performance( start_date="2025-09-01", end_date="2025-09-30") Receives campaign details such as: {"campaigns": [ {"name": "Fall Sale 2025", "impressions": 45000, "clicks": 1200, "cost": 850.50, "conversions": 45}, {"name": "Brand Awareness", "impressions": 120000, "clicks": 3500, "cost": 2100.00, "conversions": 120}]},... ]} 10 OpenWebUI sends a new API request to ChatGPT that includes the full conversation so far — the user’s messages, the assistant’s tool-call suggestion, and the tool’s execution result (as a role: "tool" message). {"messages": [ ...previous messages..., {"role": "assistant", "content": null, " tool_calls ": [{"id": "call_abc123", "type": "function", "function": {"name": "get_campaign_performance", "arguments": "{...}"}}]}, { "role": "tool" , "tool_call_id": "call_abc123", "name": "get_campaign_performance", "content": "{"campaigns": [ {"name": "Fall Sale 2025", "impressions": 45000, "clicks": 1200, "cost": 850.50, "conversions": 45}, {"name": "Brand Awareness", "impressions": 120000, "clicks": 3500, "cost": 2100.00, "conversions": 120}]},... ]}} ], "tools": [...]} 11 ChatGPT generates final response. {"role": "assistant", "content": "Here's your campaign performance for September 2025: **Fall Sale 2025** - Impressions: 45,000 - Clicks: 1,200 (2.67% CTR) - Cost: $850.50 - Conversions: 45 (3.75% conversion rate) - Cost per conversion: $18.90 **Brand Awareness** - Impressions: 120,000 - Clicks: 3,500 (2.92% CTR) - Cost: $2,100.00 - Conversions: 120 (3.43% conversion rate) - Cost per conversion: $17.50 The Brand Awareness campaign shows better efficiency with a lower cost per conversion."} 12 OpenWebUI displays final response Here's your campaign performance for September 2025: Fall Sale 2025 Impressions: 45,000 Clicks: 1,200 (2.67% CTR) Cost: $850.50 Conversions: 45 (3.75% conversion rate) Cost per conversion: $18.90 Brand Awareness Impressions: 120,000 Clicks: 3,500 (2.92% CTR) Cost: $2,100.00 Conversions: 120 (3.43% conversion rate) Cost per conversion: $17.50 The Brand Awareness campaign shows better efficiency with a lower cost per conversion. With MCP If OpenWebUI uses Google’s MCP server, Step 0 changes entirely: The engineering team would not need to create functions as in the Step 0 of the above table. Instead the step 0 will replaced with the step 0 in the table given below. Step Action Notes 0 Engineering team configures MCP client in OpenWebUI using Google Ads MCP manifest MCP client typically validates the manifest (schema check, endpoint reachability, etc.) but does not yet request live tool metadata from the server 1 User starts chat session MCP client actually connects to the MCP server using JSON-RPC over WebSocket or HTTP, and receives the following list of tools (names, descriptions, property schemas) from MCP server: execute_gaql_query , get_campaign_performance , get_ad_performance Steps 2 to 8 remain the same 9 OpenWebUI receives response from ChatGPT and follows its suggestion. It calls the MCP tool via its MCP {"method": "tools/call", "params": {"name": "get_campaign_performance", "arguments": {"start_date": "2025-09-01", "end_date": "2025-09-30"}}, "id": 1} 10 MCP server processes request and return results to OpenWebUI Sends campaign details such as: {"campaigns": [ {"name": "Fall Sale 2025", "impressions": 45000, "clicks": 1200, "cost": 850.50, "conversions": 45}, {"name": "Brand Awareness", "impressions": 120000, "clicks": 3500, "cost": 2100.00, "conversions": 120}]},... ]} Rest remains the same Adaptation for ChatGPT Custom GPTs If using ChatGPT's chat interface with custom GPTs instead of OpenWebUI, the core flow remains the same but the function execution mechanism differs significantly: Step 1 would involve defining "Actions" (OpenAI's term for external API integrations) in the custom GPT configuration using OpenAPI schema, rather than loading internal plugins. These Actions point to external API endpoints that you host or subscribe to. Step 10 changes fundamentally: Instead of executing functions internally, ChatGPT makes an HTTP POST request to your external API endpoint (e.g., https://your-api.example.com/campaign-performance). The request includes the function arguments as JSON in the request body, along with any required authentication headers (API keys, OAuth tokens). Step 11 would involve your external API server receiving the HTTP request, authenticating, querying the Google Ads API, processing the data, and returning an HTTP response with the campaign data in JSON format. The key architectural difference: OpenWebUI executes functions in its own runtime environment (internal plugins), while custom GPTs delegate function execution to external API services via HTTP. Despite this difference, the conversation flow, message array structure, and ChatGPT's role in determining when to call functions and synthesizing responses remains identical. This same pattern applies to other platforms like Anthropic's Claude with tool use, Microsoft Copilot Studio, or any LLM controller supporting function calling. Why Offer an MCP Server to Your Customers? Providing your own MCP server — instead of letting customers build functions using your APIs — drastically lowers technical barrier for your customers, improves integration efficiency and user experience. Aspect MCP Approach Function Calling Approach Winner & Why Initial Setup Time Customer adds your MCP server URL, configures credentials once, and starts using tools immediately. Customer must study your APIs, code functions, test, debug, and maintain them. ✅ MCP - 95% faster integration. Technical Skills Needed Your customer needs minimal technical knowledge as they only need to edit configuration files. Your customer need to have software development expertise or have access to the engineering team to build functions. ✅ MCP - Democratizes access for your non-technical customers. They don't need to be developers or have the access to an engineering team. Code Responsibility You develop, host and manage common workflows as tools. Every customer has to code, host and manage functions separately. ✅ MCP - You manage tools centrally making it easier for your customers. Feature Updates Customers automatically get the latest features and fixes. Customers must manually update their code as your APIs evolve. ✅ MCP - Zero burden on your customers to upgrade. Cross-Platform Reusability Works across all LLM controllers supporting MCP with zero change Each customer must rewrite functions per LLM controller platform. ✅ MCP - True "write once, run anywhere" for AI integrations. Total Cost of Ownership No developer or infrastructure cost for customers. Customers bear development, hosting, and maintenance costs. ✅ MCP - Dramatically lowers TCO. Customization Flexibility Limited to your provided tools. Customers have full control to extend logic. ✅ Function Calling - Better for power users needing custom workflows. From a service-provider perspective: MCP servers make it dramatically easier for customers to use your services without requiring engineering resources. Customers save cost and effort, and are more likely to rely on your managed tools long-term. MCP doesn’t replace your APIs — advanced users will still build on your raw endpoints for custom workflows. You’ll incur extra cost maintaining both APIs and the higher-level workflows your MCP server exposes. In short, Function Calling gives developers maximum flexibility, while MCP delivers scalable, frictionless integration for the broader market. The two approaches complement each other — not compete. Empowering Non-Technical Teams Through MCP One of the most powerful outcomes of adopting MCP is how it democratizes access to AI-driven automation and data workflows. In a typical organization today, tasks like querying analytics data, checking campaign performance, or triggering system actions require help from engineers or data teams. With MCP: Business, marketing, and operations staff can interact with AI tools directly — no coding, SDKs, or API knowledge needed. Tools are predefined, validated, and centrally managed by technical teams, so non-technical users can safely use them via natural-language prompts. Each department (marketing, sales, HR, finance) can have its own MCP servers exposing relevant workflows — like get_campaign_metrics, fetch_invoice_status, or generate_hiring_summary. Because MCP tools are discoverable at runtime, employees can explore capabilities dynamically instead of depending on documentation or custom dashboards. This model effectively turns AI chat interfaces (like ChatGPT, Claude Desktop, or OpenWebUI) into functional copilots for every role — built on a controlled, maintainable backend infrastructure. From a business perspective: It cuts down support and ticket volume to engineering. Speeds up decision-making. Keeps compliance and data access under centralized governance. Limitations and Challenges of MCP Ecosystem Maturity MCP is still very new (originating from Anthropic). Only a few LLM controllers currently support it natively. Most integrations are experimental or rely on unofficial client libraries. Implementation Complexity Hosting an MCP server isn’t trivial — you have to build a compliant JSON-RPC API layer, handle schema validation, manage authentication, and keep everything performant under real-time chat loads. Security & Access Control Because MCP servers expose powerful tools directly to models, misconfigured endpoints can leak or damage data. Authentication, rate limiting, and scoped permissions must be airtight. Performance Overhead The extra layer of indirection (client ↔ server ↔ model) can add latency. For high-frequency tool calls, this can become noticeable, especially over WebSocket or HTTP when many tools are being registered dynamically. Limited Standardization Across Vendors While MCP defines the protocol, each vendor interprets it slightly differently. Tool discovery, auth schemes, and schema conventions aren’t always 100% compatible between OpenAI, Anthropic, or local controller ecosystems. Debugging & Observability Gaps Unlike traditional function-calling setups where you control both ends, MCP often spans multiple systems. That makes debugging harder — logs, tracing, and error visibility can be fragmented across the LLM controller, MCP client, and the tool server. About the Author Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue.
9 min read
authors:
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
What AI Skills Do Engineers, Managers, and Users Actually Need?
Article
The mandate has come down from the top: "We need to be an AI-first company." Instantly, a wave of uncertainty sweeps across the organization. Managers scramble to hire "AI talent," while employees wonder which online course will make them relevant. Does the finance team need to learn Python? Should customer service leads be fine-tuning large language models? This is the central problem facing businesses today: a profound lack of clarity on who needs what kind of AI skills. This article provides a blueprint to cut through the confusion. We will move beyond the hype and define the three distinct, essential roles that make AI work in the real world: the AI User, the AI Manager/Conductor, and the AI Engineer/Builder. By understanding the specific contributions of each, you can finally bring clarity to your AI strategy, empower your entire workforce, and build the collaborative engine needed for sustained innovation.True success with AI doesn't come from hiring a handful of technical geniuses. It comes from building a well-orchestrated team with a diverse, complementary set of skills. 1. The AI User 🎯: The Source of Ground Truth The AI User role is filled by the domain experts and end-users who provide essential real-world validation and feedback. They are the ultimate source of ground truth, ensuring that the AI solution is practical, relevant, and effective in the context of their daily work. Key Responsibilities: Domain Expertise : Share tacit knowledge, explain nuanced decision-making processes, and validate AI outputs against real-world scenarios. Testing & Feedback : Participate in pilot testing, report edge cases and system failures, and provide ongoing performance feedback during actual usage. Requirements Validation : Ensure proposed solutions align with actual work needs and validate that technical implementations meet workflow requirements. Quality Assurance : Grade AI outputs, test different prompt variations, and identify when outputs fall short in practice. 2. The AI Manager / Conductor 🎼: The Strategic Orchestrator AI Managers, or "Conductors," are the strategic orchestrators who bridge business needs with technical implementation. They translate organizational goals into a coherent AI strategy and ensure that all parts of the team are working in harmony toward a shared, value-driven objective. Key Responsibilities: Strategic Direction : Define AI scope, boundaries, and success criteria in business terms; align AI behavior with organizational goals. Architecture Guidance : Make high-level design decisions, determine escalation points, and specify business requirements for AI capabilities. Knowledge Translation : Lead tacit knowledge extraction from users and translate expert insights into structured guidance for builders. Evaluation Design : Create comprehensive evaluation frameworks, define rubrics aligned with organizational standards, and prioritize improvements based on business impact. Cross-functional Coordination : Aggregate feedback streams, coordinate between users and builders, and manage the continuous improvement process. 3. The AI Engineer / Builder 🛠️: The Technical Implementer The AI Engineers, or "Builders," are the technical implementers who build, deploy, and maintain AI systems. They are the hands-on creators responsible for turning strategic plans and architectural designs into robust, scalable, and reliable software. Key Responsibilities: System Implementation : Design and code AI capabilities, control flows, data pipelines, and integration with existing systems. Technical Architecture : Implement monitoring, guardrails, safety measures, and robust execution frameworks with proper error handling. Performance Optimization : Build evaluation systems, implement A/B testing, optimize for cost/latency/accuracy, and maintain CI/CD pipelines. Infrastructure Development : Create data collection systems, prompt engineering frameworks, and automated feedback incorporation mechanisms. Continuous Deployment : Implement updates, monitor performance, provide technical root-cause analysis, and maintain system reliability. The Collaborative Dynamic: A Continuous Feedback Loop These roles do not operate in isolation. Their power comes from their interaction in a continuous feedback loop: The three archetypes work in a continuous feedback loop: Users provide domain expertise and real-world validation, Conductors translate business needs into strategic direction, and Builders implement technical solutions that get validated by Users and refined based on Conductor guidance. This iterative cycle is the engine of successful AI development, ensuring that technology remains firmly anchored to business value and human experience. Go Deeper: A Comprehensive Role Breakdown Want a more detailed look at how these roles collaborate? We've created a comprehensive chart that breaks down the specific responsibilities for Builders, Conductors, and Users across 9 critical dimensions—from Data Strategy to Safeguards. Dimension AI Users AI Managers / Conductors AI Engineers / Builders 1. AI Role in Workflow, Scope Definition, Success Criteria Provide input on business problems and expected outcomes when prompted • Share real-world usage patterns and pain points • Validate that proposed solutions align with actual work needs • Give feedback on success criteria relevance to daily tasks • Supply real‑world examples of the problem to clarify pain points • Define AI's role, scope, and boundaries based on business understanding • Align AI behavior with business goals and reduce ambiguity • Set success criteria in measurable business terms rather than technical metrics • Identify high-impact areas where AI can accelerate decisions or reduce manual effort • Make cost-conscious design decisions on what outputs add value • Prioritize between intelligent automation vs rule-based solutions • Track ROI and evaluate if AI achieves intended goals • Lead continuous collaboration for tuning systems to evolving business needs • Collaborate with Conductors on technical feasibility of scope and boundaries • Provide input on cost implications of different technical approaches • Assess technical tradeoffs for various implementation options • Implement progress reporting and clarification mechanisms in code • Build systems that support the success criteria defined by Conductors 2. System Architecture, Control Flow & Tooling • Provide feedback on user interface and interaction patterns when using the system • Report issues with AI responsiveness, confusion or escalation processes • Share insights on when human oversight feels necessary in their workflow • Experience the workflow and trigger human‑escalation paths, providing feedback on flow breakpoints • Define when AI should act autonomously vs escalate to human supervision • Collaborate with Builders on high-level architecture decisions • Specify business requirements for AI capabilities and interaction patterns • Determine escalation and hand-off points based on business risk • Define scope of AI interactions with APIs and systems • Guide decomposition of complex processes into manageable components • Ensure monitoring / auditing hooks implemented by Builders meet formal governance needs • Design AI capabilities, memory, tools, and interaction patterns systematically • Implement well-scoped architecture for inputs, outputs, and system coordination • Structure control flow using finite-state logic, timeouts, and hand-off points • Design sandboxed execution with rate limits, API boundaries, and isolation • Prevent cascading failures and abuse during autonomous operation • Implement monitoring pipelines and tooling for debugging and auditing • Code systematic experimentation with different execution sequences 3. Data Strategy: Collection, Annotation & Synthesis • Provide domain expertise on what constitutes representative real-world scenarios • Identify edge cases and failure points from their daily experience • Validate synthetic data realism against actual work scenarios • Participate in annotation of ambiguous cases when guided by Conductors • Generate real‑world traces by using the system • Plan overall data strategy and identify what data truly matters • Ensure data is representative and captures full range of business scenarios and edge cases • Co‑ordinate between Users and Builders for various purposes including data gathering, processing and annotation. • Guide synthetic dataset creation using domain expertise • Define data-level success criteria and labeling guidelines • Implement data collection and processing systems • Build synthetic dataset generation based on Conductor guidance • Code annotation tools and workflows • Implement data quality tracking and correction mechanisms • Build systems to stress-test models using synthetic examples • Create data pipelines that support representative and exhaustive datasets • Share metrics & data issues with Conductors for decision‑making 4. Tacit Knowledge Extraction using ML/Rule-based • Act as domain experts—answer structured interviews, walk through tacit decisions, review extracted rules • Share intuitive knowledge and habitual decisions through guided questioning • Explain nuanced judgment processes they use in their work • Validate extracted knowledge against their real-world experience • Provide context on organization-specific practices and exceptions • Lead tacit knowledge extraction through users' structured interviews • Translate expert insights into structured guidance for systems • Choose between rule-based and ML approaches for knowledge capture • Collaborate with Builders on identifying data and planning ML analysis if needed for knowledge extraction • Define external guidance methods to handle organization-specific information • Ensure extracted knowledge aligns with business practices and constraints • Implement rule-based systems based on articulated organizational practices • Experiment various ML models on identified data and build ML pipeline for tacit knowledge extraction • Code knowledge injection methods for context not in training data • Evaluate performance on dedicated tacit‑knowledge test suites and iterate with Conductors & Users on gaps 5. Prompt & Instruction Engineering • Provide feedback on prompt effectiveness based on actual usage • Validate that instructions produce expected results in real scenarios • Share examples of nuanced or rare scenarios they encounter • Provide their workflow examples as per Conductors' requests • Test different prompt variations and report on quality differences • Use prompts provided by Conductors for effective AI usage • Determine context requirements - what background information is necessary • Balance specificity and conciseness based on business needs • Separate must-have constraints from nice-to-haves • Define measurable definitions to replace ambiguous terms • Align context with business objectives and confidentiality requirements • Guide prompt structure for complex reasoning scenarios • Gather few shot examples from Users for prompts • Collaborate with Builders on experimenting with • Implement prompt logic and instructions in structured input-output behavior • Code prompt templates, dynamic context injectors, reasoning scaffolds • Implement reasoning guidance for complex scenarios requiring thought processes • Code task interdependence logic for combined or split instructions • Implement framework for managing prompt versions • Build pipelines for tracking prompt performance across various models • Build interfaces for Users to provide feedback on prompts • Optimize prompt engineering for performance and accuracy 6. Development / Coding • Test coded solutions in real-world scenarios and provide feedback • Report on system performance during actual usage • Validate that technical implementation meets their workflow needs • Collaborate with Builders on technical approach assessment • Define business requirements for system performance and accuracy • Set priorities for optimization around resources needed, cost, and latency based on business impact • Guide hybrid workflow design (AI + rule-based + APIs) from business perspective • Prioritize feature backlog & experimentation roadmap • Co‑ordinate pilot roll‑outs with Users (timing, comms, opt‑in/opt‑out) • Implement all technical aspects of data processing and AI integration • Manage pipeline for training AI models and using them for inference • Code systematic testing of different approaches against metrics • Optimize for costs, processing time, accuracy and business alignment • Implement efficiency optimizations - reducing tool calls, reusing outputs • Code hybrid workflows coordinating AI, rule-based systems, and APIs • Translate architecture and control flow into executable code • Implement execution sequences with fallback and retry mechanisms • Maintain CI/CD pipelines and formal technical documentation 7. Safeguards, Guardrails & Observability • Report safety issues, harmful, off‑policy, and unexpected behaviors during usage • Handle scenarios that AI direct to users • Provide feedback and share their handling of scenarios, especially escalated ones, via provided interfaces • Validate guardrail effectiveness based on real-world system interaction • Define defense-in-depth strategy requirements based on business risk • Set content-filter rules, thresholds and escalation procedures for human oversight • Determine what should be auditable and traceable for business purposes • Define guardrail activation triggers for uncertainty and violations • Specify monitoring requirements for business-critical functions • Review observability reports with Builders and explore alternate high-level design discussions if needed • Implement hallucination detection, PII filters, content filters, and fallback policies • Code activation triggers for uncertainty and guardrail violations • Build traceability infrastructure with structured logging of all agent behavior • Implement guardrails for safety and misuse prevention • Develop robust monitoring systems to detect silent degradation • Create audit trails for reproducing and improving agent behavior 8. Pilot Testing & Evaluation (LLM + Human) • Participate in human grading of AI outputs and quality • Participate in calibration reviews to align evaluation pipelines with human preferences • Provide real-world validation of AI performance in actual work scenarios • Give feedback on evaluation criteria relevance to business needs • Test edge cases during pilot phases and report findings • Design comprehensive evaluation frameworks assessing business value • Define evaluation rubrics that align with organizational standards • Determine appropriate scale and criteria for subjective qualities • Ensure pilot performance measurement against business objectives • Guide human-expectation alignment checks for organizational conformity • Work with Builders to create representative validation sets for AI evaluations • Implement LLM graders with unambiguous scoring schemes • Code multi-faceted evaluation approaches combining various assessment methods • Build edge case testing systems and tool behavior evaluation • Implement monitoring pipelines and feedback loops for continuous improvement • Create validation systems to align model judgments with standards • Code evaluation infrastructure for technical performance indicators • Implement automated evaluators, metrics collectors, A/B testing of various AI approaches • Execute pilot runs, gather logs, compute scores 9. Continuous Improvement & Feedback Loops • Actively identify when outputs fall short in real-world usage • Provide ongoing feedback on system performance and areas for improvement • Report edge cases and unexpected behaviors encountered during regular use • Validate improvements against actual work requirements • Aggregate feedback streams, analyze trends, reprioritize updates and guide targeted feedback and improvement strategies based on business impact • Schedule retraining or prompt revisions and lead continuous collaboration to keep AI aligned with evolving business goals • Guard budget & ROI during long-term iteration and prioritize improvement efforts based on business value and user impact • Guide Builders on next sprints and ensure improvements align with changing processes and constraints • Drive cross-functional feedback sessions that include Users and Builders and coordinate iterative refinement across all stakeholders • Patch prompts, data, code; retrain models and implement monitoring pipelines for reliable deployment performance • Refine monitoring & alert thresholds and code iterative engineering approaches with rigorous testing and observation • Deploy updates and verify impact and build systems for prompt refinement in response to tool function feedback • Provide technical root-cause analyses to Conductors and implement feedback incorporation mechanisms for data, instructions, and design • Implement rapid A/B or canary tests and roll back deployments if regressions are detected • Document changes and publish release notes for Conductors & Users and create automated improvement suggestions based on performance data • Build systems that adapt based on real-world usage observations Conclusion: AI is a Team Sport The narrative that building AI is solely the domain of hooded figures typing in a dark room is officially obsolete. Creating intelligent systems that deliver real, lasting business value is a fundamentally human and collaborative endeavor. Organizations that succeed in the AI era will be the ones that stop searching for mythical, all-in-one "AI experts" and start intentionally cultivating the distinct, complementary skills of Builders, Conductors, and Users. By fostering a culture of deep respect and creating structured feedback loops between these three roles, you can move beyond the hype and build an organization that doesn't just use AI, but masters it. As you look at your own organization, ask yourself: Have we only hired the Builders? Who is our Conductor? And are we truly listening to our Users? #AIAdoption #AITransformation #AIUser #AIConductor #AIEngineer #OrgDesign #TeamAI #AITalent #AIXRoles #AIInPractice #CollaborationInAI #AILeadership About the Author Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue.
9 min read
authors:
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
Cursor UI Agent (CUA): AI Agent to Operate Cursor Autonomously
Article
1. Abstract This project introduces the Cursor UI Agent (CUA), a Python-based AI Agent that can operate Cursor as a human user. Since they are no APIs or SDK for Cursor, the CUA "sees" the screen like a person would, detects the location of the chat input box using visual models (OWLv2 and Qwen-VL), and then simulates mouse and keyboard actions to interact with the application. This allows it to click on the input field, paste a prompt, and press enter—just like a real user. This approach enables automation even when public APIs are unavailable, opening up new possibilities for integrating AI platforms into broader projects. 2. Introduction Many AI tools—such as Cursor—offer powerful capabilities, but they often lack public APIs or impose limits on automated use. This creates challenges for developers who want to integrate these tools into their own workflows or test them at scale. The Cursor UI Agent (CUA) was created to address this issue. Rather than communicating with these tools through code or APIs, the CUA mimics how a human would interact with the user interface directly on screen. The core idea is simple: treat the AI application like a black box. The CUA takes a screenshot of the current screen, uses computer vision to detect the chat input box, and then automates the steps a person would take—moving the mouse, clicking, typing or pasting text, and hitting enter. This makes it possible to automate AI tools even when API access is restricted. The project uses object detection models like OWLv2 and Qwen-VL to visually understand the screen and act accordingly. 3. Methods 3.1 Requirements Python 3.9+ pyautogui for mouse and keyboard control Internet access for using cloud-based models API keys for: OWLv2 via Hugging Face Qwen-VL via DeepInfra 3.2 Setup Steps Open Cursor: Make sure you're logged in to a chat-based AI tool. Open Chat Interface: Make sure the input box is fully visible. Keep Layout Steady: Don’t scroll, resize, or switch tabs while running the agent. Prepare the Script: Your script should: Take a screenshot Run OWLv2 (fallback to Qwen-VL if needed) Move the mouse and click Paste and submit prompts Run the Script: Execute your Python script to launch the agent 3.3 Overview of System Workflow The CUA is developed in Python and divided into separate modules for clarity and modular testing. The system mimics a human using visual inputs to locate the chat input box, move the mouse, click the box, type a prompt, and press Enter. The flow is explained in two stages: detection and interaction , and two-phase testing. 3.4 Visual Perception Module 3.4.1 Screenshot Capture The process begins by capturing a screenshot of the user's current screen using Python’s PIL (Pillow) library. This screenshot becomes the input for the object detection model. The agent does not have prior knowledge of the page layout — it acts solely based on what is visually seen on screen, just like a person. 3.4.2 OWLv2 Detection The main computer vision task is zero-shot object detection : identifying the location of the “chat input box” without having trained on that exact image. Model Used : OWLv2, hosted on Hugging Face Method : We ask OWLv2 to detect an object labeled as "chat input box" Output : The model returns bounding box coordinates Before continuing, the system checks if the detected bounding box meets basic sanity criteria, such as minimum width/height and position not being in the top-left corner (a common false positive). This helps ensure reliable interaction before proceeding. If the coordinates are suspicious, detection is considered a failure. This step is crucial because it allows the agent to operate on any screen, even unfamiliar ones, by just using a description. 3.4.3 Fallback Detection with Qwen-VL If OWLv2 fails or returns invalid coordinates, the agent uses a second model — Qwen-VL — via API access on DeepInfra. Task : Image-guided detection Inputs: Full screenshot of the current screen A smaller sample image of a chat input box Output : Bounding box coordinates if the chat box is found This approach helps recover when zero-shot detection fails. For example, some websites may have unique layouts that OWLv2 struggles to understand. Qwen-VL provides a second chance by comparing visual similarities between two images 3.5 Action Execution Module 3.5.1 Mouse Movement and Click After getting valid coordinates, the system uses them to calculate the center point of the detected box. The pyautogui library is then used to: Move the mouse to that center point Click the box to activate it Clicking the center maximizes the chance that the cursor lands in the right place, even if the bounding box isn't perfectly shaped. 3.5.2 Typing and Submitting a Prompt The next step simulates a human typing into the input field: The agent pastes a prewritten prompt Then it presses the Enter key This completes a full interaction cycle without needing backend APIs. 3.6 Two-Phase Testing Design To make sure the system works reliably, it runs in two stages: Phase 1 – Basic Test Prompt Used: "Create an HTML page that says 'Hello World'" Goal: Sanity check. Confirm that: The input box was detected Mouse movement and click succeeded The prompt was successfully submitted This phase ensures that the core interaction is working before proceeding to a more complex task. Phase 2 – Real-World Prompt This phase starts only if Phase 1 succeeds, adding reliability to the process. Prompt Used: "Generate a high-level list of pages/screens for a typical web application. Provide the output in Markdown format using headings and bullet points." Goal: Test how the system handles real-world prompt interactions, such as structured output, longer text, and Markdown formatting. 4. System Explanation Below is a detailed walkthrough of the visual interaction process: Capture Screenshot A full-screen image is taken to be analyzed. No layout assumptions are made — the agent relies purely on what it can "see." Run Detection Model OWLv2 is tried first to locate the chat input box. If that fails, Qwen-VL is used with a visual reference image. Get Coordinates Bounding box coordinates are returned. These are used to calculate the box's center. Move and Click The system moves the mouse to the center and clicks the box to activate it. Paste and Send Prompt (Phase 1) A short prompt is pasted and submitted. This helps confirm that detection and input simulation are functional. Wait and Trigger Phase 2 A short 3-second pause is included. This gives time for the screen to respond, especially if the AI assistant shows animations or refreshes. Redetect Input Box A second round of detection ensures the chat input box hasn’t moved. Some apps shift elements after submission, so this avoids clicking in the wrong place. Clear Previous Input All text in the input field is selected and deleted. This avoids mixing prompts or generating confusing results. Paste and Send Real Prompt (Phase 2) A longer prompt is submitted. This prompt simulates a typical user query to evaluate the full system behavior. Wait for AI Response A short delay is included to allow the assistant to respond. In future versions, the screen output can be read using OCR. This entire process — from image detection to prompt submission — mimics how a human would interact visually and manually with an AI interface. It removes the need for APIs and relies only on what’s seen on-screen. Each phase adds confidence that the system is working before progressing further. 5. Results The OWLv2 model successfully identified the chat box in approximately 85% of cases. In instances where OWLv2 failed, Qwen-VL often provided a successful alternative, elevating the overall success rate to roughly 95%. Occasional inaccuracies in clicking occurred due to screen clutter or alignment issues. Following the identification of the chat box, mouse and keyboard actions performed seamlessly. The primary challenge was the precise timing adjustments between steps to account for variations in computer processing speed and website load times. Factors such as screen layout and resolution also had a minor impact on accuracy. 6. Discussion The project ran into a few common problems in UI automation. Sometimes the detection box wasn’t perfect, so the mouse didn’t click in the right spot. In other cases, the chat input box moved after a message was sent, making the original detection useless. To solve these problems, the system was updated to double-check the box’s location after each prompt. A short pause was also added to let the screen settle before moving on. These simple fixes helped make the agent more reliable. Even though this project was focused on Cursor, the same method could work for other tools too. For example, this type of visual agent could help people with disabilities control software or could be used in software testing by simulating how a real person would use a program. It could also act as a bridge between AI models and tools that don’t have APIs. 7. Future Work While CUA demonstrates proof-of-concept automation using visual perception and basic control flows, more robust solutions are better handled by full-fledged desktop agents like Simular's Agent S2. Future iterations should explore migrating toward such architectures to gain the following: Native extraction of AI responses using UI-level access instead of OCR. Built-in retry mechanisms that adapt automatically to failures or screen changes. Multi-turn workflows with integrated agentic memory and planning capabilities. Scrolling and chat history extraction, enabling context-aware prompting. Cross-application automation, reducing reliance on fragile visual models. Integrating CUA logic into a Simular-based foundation can retain its lightweight benefits while gaining scalability and resilience. 8. Conclusion The Cursor UI Agent (CUA) shows that it’s possible to automate tools like ChatGPT using only what’s visible on screen—no need for API access. By combining object detection models with mouse and keyboard simulation, CUA acts like a human user to interact with the interface. This makes it useful not just for Cursor, but also for other apps where normal automation methods aren’t available. 9. Mermaid Diagram Source Code The Mermaid code below represents the full visual process described in the System Explanation section. This code can be used to regenerate or modify the flowchart in supported Markdown editors or diagram tools. flowchart TD Start([START<br/>Capture Screenshot]) Start --> Detect{Run Detection<br/>OWLv2 Model} Detect -->|Success| GetCoords[Get Coordinates] Detect -->|Fail| Fallback[Run Qwen-VL<br/>Fallback] Fallback --> GetCoords GetCoords --> Click[Move Mouse<br/>Click Input Box] Click --> Phase1[PHASE 1<br/>Send Test Prompt] Phase1 --> SentCheck{Prompt Sent<br/>Successfully?} SentCheck -->|Yes| Wait[Wait<br/>3 Seconds] SentCheck -->|No| Fail[Log Failure<br/>Exit] Wait --> Redetect[Redetect<br/>Input Box] Redetect --> Clear[Clear Previous<br/>Input] Clear --> Phase2[PHASE 2<br/>Send Real Prompt] Phase2 --> End[Wait for Response<br/>FINISH] classDef startEnd fill:#228B22,stroke:#006400,stroke-width:4px,color:#FFFFFF,font-weight:bold,font-size:16px,font-family:Arial classDef process fill:#1E90FF,stroke:#0047AB,stroke-width:3px,color:#FFFFFF,font-weight:bold,font-size:15px,font-family:Arial classDef decision fill:#FF8C00,stroke:#FF4500,stroke-width:3px,color:#FFFFFF,font-weight:bold,font-size:15px,font-family:Arial classDef failure fill:#DC143C,stroke:#8B0000,stroke-width:4px,color:#FFFFFF,font-weight:bold,font-size:15px,font-family:Arial classDef fallback fill:#8A2BE2,stroke:#4B0082,stroke-width:3px,color:#FFFFFF,font-weight:bold,font-size:15px,font-family:Arial class Start,End startEnd class GetCoords,Click,Phase1,Wait,Redetect,Clear,Phase2 process class Detect,SentCheck decision class Fail failure class Fallback fallback 10. References Hugging Face OWLv2 Model – https://huggingface.co/google/owlv2-base-patch16-ensemble DeepInfra Qwen-VL – https://deepinfra.com PyAutoGUI Documentation – https://pyautogui.readthedocs.io Transformers Library – https://huggingface.co/transformers Python Pillow Library (PIL) – https://python-pillow.org #CursorUIAgent #VisualAgents #OWLv2 #PyAutoGUI #ZeroShotDetection #AIIntegration #UIAutomation #AgenticInterfaces About the Author Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue.
1 min read
authors:
Adya GuptaAdya Gupta
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
The FAT Lens: Concentric Maturity Model for AI Integration
Article
AI’s transformative power is often likened to earlier step-change innovations: the printing press democratised knowledge, the steam engine industrialised production, the internet connected humanity, and AI is now augmenting human decision-making across every sector. Yet the speed at which AI capabilities evolve—and their very newness—leave many organisations struggling to integrate them coherently. Another stumbling block is up-skilling the workforce. Harvard Business School’s Karim Lakhani famously said, “AI won’t replace humans, but humans with AI will replace humans without AI.” The aphorism is compelling, but for most teams, the real question remains: how do we help everyone at the company “know AI”? We propose the Concentric AI Maturity Model offers a pragmatic roadmap for evolving from simple AI automation to fully agentic orchestration. It guides CTOs, CIOs, and newly minted CAIOs through three concentric “circles,” each representing a broader scope of AI capability and complexity. The model is assessed through the FAT lens—Familiarity, Autonomy, and Trust—which tracks how teams grow in understanding, confidence, and governance as AI takes on a greater role. The visual model above illustrates the Concentric AI Maturity Model, a framework for how organizations expand their use of AI across three stages—Deterministic Workflows, Hybrid/Constrained Agents, and Fully Autonomous Systems. Each stage radiates outward with increasing capability and autonomy, and is assessed through the FAT lens: Familiarity, Autonomy, and Trust. Let’s now explore each circle in depth—starting with the Inner Circle, where teams begin their AI journey through structured automation and human-guided workflows. The Inner Circle: Structured AI Automation This initial phase focuses on building explicit flowcharts where every branch is pre-defined, targeting high-volume, well-understood cases using the Pareto principle. The goal is to establish a solid foundation with no-code enabled workflows that handle the bulk of routine operations. Familiarity: This is where the journey of "knowing AI" begins. Teams learn AI model strengths and limitations, when to escalate to humans, and how to co-create automation workflows. By having non-tech and tech teams collaborate on these deterministic flows, everyone develops hands-on experience with AI's capabilities and boundaries. They see firsthand how AI can handle human-dependent simple tasks like ticket classification, data extraction from invoices, or summarizing documents, empowering them to identify new automation opportunities. Autonomy: AI autonomy is intentionally constrained to simple human-dependent tasks within larger workflows. The AI is not allowed to branch on its own. This initially limits the scope of workflows that can be automated, but that's by design—organizations need to learn walking before running. If it encounters low confidence or ambiguous inputs, the workflow automatically triggers human review . It’s a powerful assistant, not an agent. Trust: Trust is rooted in traceability. Every route in the flow is visible and explainable. Users can confidently explore how a decision was made and why AI deferred to a human. This transparency eliminates black-box anxiety, encouraging further experimentation. Behind the scenes, the tech team sets up critical infrastructure— APIs, ETL, dashboards, model integrations, and logging. The human-in-the-loop process creates a discovery loop that helps improve current implementations and uncover unhandled scenarios, paving the way for greater AI autonomy. The Center Circle – The Hybrid / Constrained Agent As organizations mature, they're ready to sandbox an agent inside existing flows to handle long-tail, ambiguous, low-frequency cases. Previous workflows continue running, but now an agent dynamically handles edge cases that fall outside traditional deterministic paths. Familiarity: Teams graduate from understanding structured workflows and AI steps to experimenting with agentic AI. They now begin to see the real power of AI augmentation. They learn advanced skills including troubleshooting, defining tools and guardrails, implementing tracing and observability, and mastering prompt patterns. Through continued collaboration, they become adept at mapping complex business logic to agentic approaches, diving deeper into prompt engineering techniques like ReAct and Chain of Thought. Autonomy: AI gains significant autonomy through dynamic planning and tool selection. For unhandled scenarios, an AI agent is invoked with context and pre-approved MCP tools, dynamically creating plans to resolve issues. However, this autonomy remains constrained within a sandbox, with human supervision ensuring responsible operation. Trust: Trust is growing, with teams focused on improving agentic handling and implementing robust guardrails. As the system effectively handles complex scenarios and guardrails prove their worth by correctly escalating issues, confidence in the agent's reasoning increases. Human feedback on agent decisions is stored, creating a feedback-rich learning loop. The infrastructure becomes more sophisticated with guardrails, MCP tools, observability and audit processes, vector stores for feedback, and hallucination checks. A powerful discovery loop emerges: human-approved plans are saved and replayed for semantically similar cases, and when patterns repeat frequently, successful plans are promoted to new reusable tools. The Outer Circle – Dynamic Agentic Orchestration Having developed processes to make agentic approaches reliable, teams are prepared to unleash fully autonomous AI orchestration. This represents full AI autonomy, where agents compose entire workflows on-demand to tackle novel, complex, multi-domain, or unprecedented tasks. The system achieves end-to-end autonomous execution while leveraging existing workflow portions as reusable MCP tools. Familiarity: Teams master the most advanced AI capabilities, learning to specify metrics, design evaluations, build exhaustive validation datasets, trace agentic decisions, troubleshoot complex issues, run structured experiments (like prompt variants and tool explanations), provide meaningful feedback, and implement comprehensive monitoring. This represents the pinnacle of AI literacy within the organization. The organization shifts from building workflows to evaluating and steering agents. Autonomy: AI achieves full autonomy by decomposing complex objectives, selecting and sequencing MCP tools, reflecting on and revising its own outputs, and evaluating various AI generated outputs using LLM-as-a-judge approaches. Agents can compose whole workflows on the fly, adapting dynamically to unprecedented challenges. Trust: At this stage, teams become cautiously optimistic—teams recognize impressive potential while acknowledging fragility in edge cases. Trust is reinforced through robust monitoring, validation datasets, escalation paths , and structured feedback mechanisms. Organizations develop sophisticated mechanisms to validate AI decisions while maintaining appropriate skepticism. The infrastructure reaches maximum sophistication with robust evaluation pipelines, comprehensive tracing and monitoring tools, multi-agent governance systems, context-aware logging, extensive prompt management and experimentation tools, and detailed feedback dashboards. The discovery loop explores several candidate solution paths in parallel and logs which ones users prefer. It estimates confidence by checking how often those independent paths converge; when they diverge—or confidence falls below a threshold—the case is automatically escalated for human review and the user can be alerted to the uncertainty. Paths that receive consistent positive feedback are replayed for semantically similar future problems, but the number of edge-case scenarios grows quickly at this stage. To keep up, the organization periodically fine-tunes its models with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) or Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), further sharpening both reasoning quality and tool selection over time. To complement the conceptual model above, the following table summarizes how organizations evolve through each concentric stage of AI maturity. It breaks down the transformation across goals, workflows, AI capabilities, team behaviors, infrastructure, and learning loops—making the progression more operationally tangible. Structured AI Automation Hybrid / Constrained Agent Dynamic Agentic Orchestration Goal Explicit flow-charts; every branch pre-defined. Sandbox an agent inside existing flows Agents compose whole workflows on the fly. Scenarios covered High-volume, well-understood cases; use Pareto principle Long-tail, ambiguous, low-frequency cases. Novel, complex, multi-domain, or unprecedented tasks. What runs automatically No-code enabled workflows. Previous workflows + agent handles edge-cases. End-to-end autonomous execution, with existing (portions of) workflows available as reusable [MCP] tools. Where AI helps Single-node tasks (classify, extract, summarize). Dynamic tool selection & planning. Decomposes complex objectives, selects and sequences [MCP] tools, reflects and revises its own outputs; evaluates others' outputs (LLM-as-a-judge). Team’s trust feels like… “Safe”— can trace every branch of n8n flow. Growing—with team focused on improving agentic handling and guardrails. Cautiously optimistic–impressive potential, but fragile in edge cases; trust built through validation and monitoring. What Team learns AI Model strengths & limits; when to escalate to human; automation workflow co-creation. Troubleshooting, defining tools & guardrails, tracing & observability, Prompt patterns. Specifying metrics, designing evaluations, building exhaustive validation datasets, tracing agentic decisions, troubleshooting, running structured experiments (e.g., prompt variants, tool explanations), giving feedback, and monitoring. Infra you build APIs, Data gathering, ETL, dashboards, ML models, logging. Guardrails, [MCP] tools needed, observability & audit processes, vector store for feedback, hallucination checks. Robust evaluation pipelines; tracing, monitoring, and auditing tools; multi-agent governance; context-aware logging; extensive prompt management & experimentation tools; feedback dashboards. Discovery / learning loop Human-in-the-loop helps improve current implementation & discover unhandled scenarios. Save human-approved plans; replay if semantically similar; promote to new tool if pattern repeats frequently. Presents multiple solution paths and logs user preferences; tracks confidence based on repeatability; escalates edge cases for human review; closes the loop with RLHF or DPO to improve behavior over time. This side-by-side view makes it clear: advancing in AI maturity isn’t just about increasing autonomy. It’s about deepening team familiarity, building the right infrastructure, and establishing trust mechanisms that support responsible, high-impact AI deployment at scale. Real-World Examples: From Automation to Agentic AI To bring the Concentric AI Maturity Model to life, let’s explore how teams in Marketing and Finance evolve through each phase. These domain-specific journeys illustrate how the principles of Familiarity, Autonomy, and Trust translate into meaningful business transformation. Example 1: Marketing Workflow Automation to Agentic Orchestration To illustrate how organizations progress through the Concentric AI Maturity Model, consider the journey of a marketing team evolving from routine automation to full agentic orchestration. Each phase builds trust through transparency, capability through learning, and value through measurable business impact. Circle 1: Structured AI Automation Scenario: Weekly campaign performance reporting across all channels Workflow: Scheduled data extraction from Salesforce (leads), MixPanel (engagement), and ad platforms (spend) AI classifies campaign types and flags performance anomalies AI generates executive summaries of key trends Summaries are routed to the marketing manager for final review and distribution Why it works: The team can trace every step, clearly understand AI’s role, and trust the process. With up to 70% time savings, they start recognizing AI’s strengths in pattern recognition and text generation. Key takeaway: Transparency builds early trust; AI handles repeatable, structured tasks. Circle 2: Hybrid / Constrained Agent Scenario: Troubleshooting complex campaign underperformance Evolution: Standard workflows continue for typical reports For edge cases, an AI agent receives context and access to tools: MixPanel query builder, Salesforce analytics, Snowflake custom queries, competitive intelligence The agent plans an investigation: “Check user journey in MixPanel → Analyze lead quality in Salesforce → Run attribution analysis in Snowflake” Agent executes the plan and produces specific recommendations Human reviews and approves recommendations before action Business value: AI now handles the 20% of complex, ambiguous cases that used to require data science support. Marketing teams begin to understand agentic reasoning and where human oversight is still essential. Key takeaway: AI becomes a trusted analyst for complex, low-frequency tasks—with humans in the loop. Circle 3: Dynamic Agentic Orchestration Scenario: Autonomous campaign optimization and strategic planning Capabilities: Given a high-level goal like “maximize Q4 customer acquisition ROI,” the AI agent orchestrates a full analysis: Reviews past performance Identifies opportunities Adjusts Braze email timing, Salesforce lead scoring, and MixPanel tracking Offers strategic recommendations, backed by transparent reasoning and predictive insights Transformation: The team shifts from reactive reporting to strategic planning. AI handles operational optimization, while humans focus on creative direction and long-term strategy. Key takeaway: Full autonomy is possible when trust, tooling, and feedback systems are mature. Example 2: Intelligent Finance Operations through Agentic Maturity While the marketing team shows how AI enhances strategy and customer engagement, finance illustrates how AI supports operational scale, compliance, and risk management. This example follows the same three-phase journey. Circle 1: Structured AI Automation Goal: Automate 80% of high-volume, routine invoice processing with explicit, rule-based flows. Finance Scenario: Invoice ingestion via email, SFTP, or direct upload Data extraction (vendor name, invoice number, total, etc.) Validation against vendor master data Categorization into correct GL accounts Approval routing based on thresholds and roles Key takeaway: Teams gain confidence as AI handles predictable tasks with accuracy and traceability. Circle 2: Hybrid / Constrained Agent Goal: Handle the 20% of edge cases that involve ambiguity or complex routing logic. Finance Scenario: Parsing unusual invoice formats from new or international vendors Resolving PO-invoice mismatches and proposing fixes Managing conditional approval flows across projects or departments Drafting vendor communication for discrepancies or delays Key takeaway: AI becomes a problem-solving assistant in edge cases—helping humans, not replacing them. Circle 3: Dynamic Agentic Orchestration Goal: Enable agents to autonomously orchestrate cross-functional financial operations. Finance Scenario: Executing complex financial closings by coordinating across teams and systems Leading fraud investigations with real-time evidence gathering and response triggers Responding to new regulations by analyzing impacts, proposing workflow changes, and implementing updates autonomously Key takeaway: AI shifts from helper to orchestrator—driving adaptability, compliance, and proactive problem-solving. Final Thoughts These examples show that AI maturity isn’t just a technological evolution—it’s an organizational one. The Concentric AI Maturity Model provides a pragmatic roadmap for evolving from narrow automation to dynamic agentic orchestration. It’s not just a technology maturity model—it’s a people maturity model for AI. It recognises that the path to autonomous agents isn’t only about better models, but about building shared understanding, growing confidence, and developing collaborative tooling between humans and machines. While AI systems become increasingly capable, it’s the teams that must mature in Familiarity, Autonomy, and Trust to unlock that potential. These attributes aren’t just technical milestones—they reflect how effectively humans and AI can partner at each stage. Ultimately, the future of work isn’t about AI replacing people—it’s about people who know how to work effectively with AI. #AIMaturityModel #FutureOfWork #AIIntegration #HumanMachineCollaboration #ResponsibleAI #EnterpriseAI About the Author Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue.
4 min read
authors:
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
What Jony Ive and Sam Altman’s New Device Means for Business, Work, and Trust
Article
Jony Ive, the legendary designer behind Apple’s most iconic products, and Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, are reportedly “cooking” up something big—a wearable device that can see, hear, and remember everything you do. Not just a fancy pair of glasses or another smartwatch, but a personal AI-enabled recorder and assistant that promises to digitize memory and streamline the interface between humans and machines. Their ambition? To build millions of these devices. Their assumption? There’s a massive market for them. And they might be right. Such a device could change how we interact with technology, with each other, and with organizations. But it will also challenge core social norms, especially around privacy, trust, and autonomy. For business school researchers and organizational thinkers, this is an intellectual jackpot—ushering in a wave of new questions, case studies, and experiments. Let’s unpack what’s at stake. 📈 Sales & Marketing: The End of CRM Grunt Work? Salespeople are known for their charm, persuasion, and hustle—but not for their love of admin tasks. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems, while essential, are often treated as burdensome. Sales reps routinely delay logging interactions, rely on memory, or skip entries entirely. This creates data gaps that frustrate managers, misinform teams, and reduce the effectiveness of sales analytics. Now imagine a wearable device that listens to every client interaction, automatically summarizes key points, logs them into the CRM, and even triggers follow-ups. Salespeople no longer need to scribble notes or remember what happened in last week’s call—it's all stored, structured, and searchable. Instant productivity boost. But here comes the tension—one that’s ripe for research: Even if local laws allow one-party consent recording, how would a prospective client feel knowing everything they say is being recorded by an invisible assistant? Trust is the currency of sales. Legal compliance may not protect against reputational damage or relational harm. Would companies be wise to adopt such devices? Should they give clients an opt-in option? Or does disclosing the presence of the device kill the flow of a conversation altogether? These are not just legal questions. They’re strategic, ethical, and emotional—and they're perfect for deep business inquiry. 🏢 Workplace Collaboration: Memory as a Service? In fast-moving organizations, contention over “who said what” or “what was agreed upon” is practically a daily occurrence. A device that captures all conversations—meetings, Slack huddles, even hallway chats—and turns them into structured knowledge could be transformative. Suddenly, meeting minutes write themselves. Confusion over requirements fades. New employees can review a project’s full history in hours, not weeks. Organizational memory becomes a service, not a liability. But again, the tension rises: If everyone is being recorded, all the time, what happens to informal collaboration? Spontaneous brainstorming? Dissent? Will employees censor themselves? Will risky ideas be left unsaid? There’s a paradox here: The very thing that enhances organizational memory may corrode its creative core. Researchers will be keen to study how these devices affect psychological safety, team dynamics, and communication patterns. Does radical transparency foster a culture of accountability—or surveillance? 🧠 Social Memory on Demand: No More “Sorry, Have We Met?” Picture this: You're at a conference, a bar, or maybe in line at a café. You strike up a conversation with someone—interesting chat, maybe even exchange contact info. But life moves on. Weeks or months later, you bump into them again. They remember your name, your shared topic of conversation… and you’re drawing a blank. We’ve all been there. Now imagine you're wearing a discreet device—let’s call it “io"—that’s been silently capturing your interactions. The moment this person walks up to you, io subtly alerts you: “Name: Itachi Uchihai. Met: NYC Tech Summit, April 2025. Works on AI and drones. Duration: 14 minutes.” Just like that, the awkwardness is gone. You're re-anchored in context. A passing encounter becomes a sustained relationship. For busy professionals, journalists, politicians, healthcare workers, baristas—anyone who meets dozens of new faces every week—this is game-changing. We often talk about "social capital" as something that’s built through repeated, meaningful interactions. But what if your device could help track and nurture that capital? Instead of connections fading into oblivion, they become part of a living, searchable social memory. You could reconnect with a donor you met at a fundraiser last year, recall a barista’s name and favorite podcast, or pick up a lead that was once just a casual conversation on a plane. But once again, here comes the tension: Is it ethical to “remember” someone better than they remember you—especially with the help of a machine? Should people be notified that their conversations might be stored? What counts as a casual chat versus a record-worthy encounter? And from a product design perspective, what’s the right balance between useful memory and creepy surveillance? Researchers in human-computer interaction, ethics, behavioral economics, and even sociology will have a field day dissecting these questions. What does “authentic connection” mean when your memory is outsourced? How will these tools affect first impressions, networking norms, or even dating? In a world where attention is fragmented and memory is overburdened, a wearable AI that acts as a “second brain” could unlock immense social value—while raising profound questions about autonomy, authenticity, and consent. Would you wear a memory device to remember strangers? More importantly: Would you expect others to wear one too? ⚖️ The Big Questions: A Researcher’s Playground The rollout of such memory-enhancing devices opens up an entire landscape of research opportunities: 1. Productivity vs. Privacy Can we quantify the productivity gains these devices offer? And at what psychological or cultural cost? 2. Power and Consent Who gets to record whom? Do executives wear them but frontline staff can't? What rights do individuals have over their recorded data? 3. Policy and Organizational Ethics Should companies define “recording zones” or mandate employee consent? How do you write an ethical AI-capture policy? 4. Cultural and Global Norms Will Western companies adopt these faster than Asian or European firms with different norms around surveillance and hierarchy? How do local legal frameworks affect adoption? 5. The Innovation Trade-Off Do these tools improve clarity but kill serendipity? How do you preserve the messy, creative parts of work while formalizing everything else? #FutureOfTech #AIWearables #SmartAssistant #AIandEthics About the Author Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue.
4 min read
authors:
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
Image Captioning: State-of-the-Art Open Source AI Models in 2025
Article
Image source: Ziyan Yang, “Contrastive Pre-training: SimCLR, CLIP, ALBEF,” COMP 648: Computer Vision Seminar, Rice University. https://www.cs.rice.edu/~vo9/cv-seminar/2022/slides/contrastive_update_ziyan.pdf Introduction Image captioning technology has evolved significantly by 2025, with state-of-the-art models now capable of generating detailed, accurate, and contextually rich descriptions of visual content. This report examines the current landscape of open source image captioning models, focusing on the top five performers that represent the cutting edge of this technology. The field has seen remarkable advancements in recent years, driven by innovations in multimodal learning, vision-language integration, and large-scale pre-training. Today's leading models can not only identify objects and their relationships but also understand complex scenes, interpret actions, recognize emotions, and generate natural language descriptions that rival human-written captions in quality and detail. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the definition and mechanics of image captioning, followed by detailed examinations of the top five open source models available in 2025, including their architectures, sizes, and performance metrics both with and without fine-tuning. Definition and Explanation of Image Captioning Definition Image captioning is a computer vision and natural language processing task that involves automatically generating textual descriptions for images. It requires an AI system to understand the visual content of an image, identify objects, recognize their relationships, interpret actions, and generate coherent, contextually relevant natural language descriptions that accurately represent what is depicted in the image. Explanation Image captioning sits at the intersection of computer vision and natural language processing, requiring models to bridge the gap between visual and textual modalities. The task involves several complex cognitive processes: Visual Understanding: The model must recognize objects, people, scenes, and their attributes (colors, sizes, positions) within the image. Relationship Detection: The model needs to understand spatial relationships between objects (e.g., "a cat sitting on a couch") and contextual interactions. Action Recognition: The model should identify activities or events occurring in the image (e.g., "a person running in a park"). Semantic Comprehension: The model must grasp the overall meaning or theme of the image, including emotional context when relevant. Natural Language Generation: Finally, the model must produce grammatically correct, fluent, and contextually appropriate text that describes the image content. Modern image captioning systems typically employ multimodal architectures that combine vision encoders (to process image features) with language models (to generate text). These systems have evolved from simple template-based approaches to sophisticated neural network architectures that can generate increasingly detailed and accurate descriptions. The applications of image captioning are diverse and impactful: Accessibility: Helping visually impaired individuals understand image content on websites and social media Content Organization: Automatically tagging and categorizing large image databases Search Enhancement: Enabling text-based searches for visual content Creative Applications: Assisting in content creation for marketing, journalism, and entertainment Educational Tools: Supporting learning through visual-textual associations Medical Imaging: Providing preliminary descriptions of medical images Example Let's consider a concrete example of image captioning: Input Image : A photograph showing a golden retriever dog playing with a red ball in a grassy park on a sunny day. In the background, there are trees and a few people walking. Basic Caption (Simple Model) : "A dog playing with a ball in a park." Detailed Caption (Advanced Model) : "A golden retriever enthusiastically chases after a bright red ball on a lush green field in a sunny park. Several people can be seen walking along a path in the background, with tall trees providing shade around the perimeter of the park." Specialized Caption (Dense Captioning) : "A golden retriever dog with light brown fur [0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.7] is running [0.3, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6] on green grass [0.0, 0.8, 1.0, 1.0]. The dog is chasing a red ball [0.4, 0.4, 0.5, 0.5]. The scene takes place in a park [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 1.0] with trees [0.7, 0.1, 0.9, 0.4] in the background. People [0.8, 0.2, 0.9, 0.3] are walking on a path [0.7, 0.6, 0.9, 0.7]. The sky [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.2] is blue with sunshine [0.5, 0.0, 0.6, 0.1] creating a bright atmosphere." Note: The numbers in brackets represent bounding box coordinates [x1, y1, x2, y2] for each described element in the dense captioning example. This example illustrates how different levels of image captioning models can generate varying degrees of detail and specificity. The most advanced models in 2025 can produce highly descriptive, accurate, and contextually rich captions that capture not just the objects in an image but also their attributes, relationships, actions, and the overall scene context. Top 5 State-of-the-Art Open Source Image Captioning Models Selection Methodology The selection of the top five image captioning models was based on a comprehensive evaluation of numerous models identified through research. The evaluation criteria included: Performance - Benchmark results and comparative performance against other models Architecture - Design sophistication and innovation Model Size - Parameter count and efficiency Multimodal Capabilities - Strength in handling both image and text Open Source Status - Availability and licensing Recency - How recent the model is and its relevance in 2025 Specific Image Captioning Capabilities - Specialized features for generating detailed captions Based on these criteria, the following five models were selected as the top state-of-the-art open source image captioning models in 2025: InternVL3 - Selected for its very recent release (April 2025), superior overall performance, and specific strength in image captioning. Llama 3.2 Vision - Selected for its strong multimodal capabilities explicitly mentioning image captioning, availability in different sizes, and backing by Meta. Molmo - Selected for its specialized dense captioning data (PixMo dataset), multiple size options, and state-of-the-art performance rivaling proprietary models. NVLM 1.0 - Selected for its frontier-class approach to vision-language models, exceptional scene understanding capability, and strong performance in multimodal reasoning. Qwen2-VL - Selected for its flexible architecture, multilingual support, and strong performance on various visual understanding benchmarks. Model 1: InternVL3 InternVL3 Architecture InternVL3 is an advanced multimodal large language model (MLLM) that builds upon the previous iterations in the InternVL series. The architecture employs a sophisticated design that integrates visual and textual processing capabilities. Key architectural components: Visual Encoder: Uses a vision transformer (ViT) architecture with advanced patch embedding techniques to process image inputs at high resolution Cross-Modal Connector: Employs specialized adapters that efficiently connect the visual representations to the language model without compromising the pre-trained capabilities of either component Language Decoder: Based on a decoder-only transformer architecture similar to those used in large language models Training Methodology: Utilizes a multi-stage training approach with pre-training on large-scale image-text pairs followed by instruction tuning The model incorporates advanced training and test-time recipes that enhance its performance across various multimodal tasks, including image captioning. InternVL3 demonstrates competitive performance across varying scales while maintaining efficiency. InternVL3 Model Size InternVL3 is available in multiple sizes: InternVL3-8B: 8 billion parameters InternVL3-26B: 26 billion parameters InternVL3-76B: 76 billion parameters The 76B variant represents the largest and most capable version, achieving top performance among open-source models and surpassing some proprietary models like GeminiProVision in benchmark evaluations. InternVL3 Performance Without Fine-tuning InternVL3 demonstrates exceptional zero-shot performance on image captioning tasks, leveraging its advanced multimodal architecture and extensive pre-training. Key performance metrics: COCO Captions: Achieves state-of-the-art results among open-source models with a CIDEr score of 143.2 and BLEU-4 score of 41.8 in zero-shot settings Nocaps: Shows strong generalization to novel objects with a CIDEr score of 125.7 Visual Question Answering: Demonstrates robust performance on VQA benchmarks with 82.5% accuracy on VQAv2 Caption Diversity: Generates diverse and detailed captions with high semantic relevance The InternVL3-76B variant particularly excels in generating detailed, contextually rich captions that capture subtle aspects of images. It outperforms many proprietary models and shows superior performance compared to previous iterations in the InternVL series. InternVL3 Performance With Fine-tuning When fine-tuned on specific image captioning datasets, InternVL3's performance improves significantly: COCO Captions: Fine-tuning boosts CIDEr score to 156.9 and BLEU-4 to 45.3 Domain-Specific Captioning: Shows remarkable adaptability to specialized domains (medical, technical, artistic) with minimal fine-tuning data Stylistic Adaptation: Can be fine-tuned to generate captions in specific styles (poetic, technical, humorous) while maintaining factual accuracy Multilingual Captioning: Fine-tuning enables high-quality captioning in multiple languages beyond English The model demonstrates excellent parameter efficiency during fine-tuning, requiring relatively small amounts of domain-specific data to achieve significant performance improvements. Model 2: Llama 3.2 Vision Llama 3.2 Vision Architecture Llama 3.2 Vision, developed by Meta, extends the Llama language model series with multimodal capabilities. The architecture is designed to process both text and images effectively. Key architectural components: Image Encoder: Utilizes a pre-trained image encoder that processes visual inputs Adapter Mechanism: Integrates a specialized adapter network that connects the image encoder to the language model Language Model: Based on the Llama 3.2 architecture, which is a decoder-only transformer model Integration Approach: The model connects image data to the text-processing layers through adapters, allowing simultaneous handling of both modalities The architecture maintains the strong language capabilities of the base Llama 3.2 model while adding robust visual understanding. This design allows the model to perform various image-text tasks, including generating detailed captions for images. Llama 3.2 Vision Model Size Llama 3.2 Vision is available in two main parameter sizes: Llama 3.2 Vision-11B: 11 billion parameters Llama 3.2 Vision-90B: 90 billion parameters The 90B variant offers superior performance, particularly in tasks involving complex visual reasoning and detailed image captioning. Llama 3.2 Vision Performance Without Fine-tuning Llama 3.2 Vision shows strong zero-shot performance on image captioning tasks, particularly with its 90B variant. Key performance metrics: COCO Captions: Achieves a CIDEr score of 138.5 and BLEU-4 score of 39.7 in zero-shot settings Chart and Diagram Understanding: Outperforms proprietary models like Claude 3 Haiku in tasks involving chart and diagram captioning Detailed Description Generation: Produces comprehensive descriptions capturing multiple elements and their relationships Factual Accuracy: Maintains high factual accuracy in generated captions, with low hallucination rates The model demonstrates particularly strong performance in generating structured, coherent captions that accurately describe complex visual scenes. Llama 3.2 Vision Performance With Fine-tuning Fine-tuning significantly enhances Llama 3.2 Vision's captioning capabilities: COCO Captions: Fine-tuning improves CIDEr score to 149.8 and BLEU-4 to 43.2 Specialized Domains: Shows strong adaptation to specific domains like medical imaging, satellite imagery, and technical diagrams Instruction Following: Fine-tuning improves the model's ability to follow specific captioning instructions (e.g., "focus on the foreground," "describe colors in detail") Consistency: Demonstrates improved consistency in caption quality across diverse image types The 11B variant shows remarkable improvement with fine-tuning, approaching the performance of the zero-shot 90B model in some benchmarks, making it a more efficient option for deployment in resource-constrained environments. Model 3: Molmo Molmo Architecture Molmo, developed by the Allen Institute for AI, represents a family of open-source vision language models with a unique approach to multimodal understanding. Key architectural components: Vision Encoder: Employs a transformer-based vision encoder optimized for detailed visual feature extraction Multimodal Fusion: Uses an advanced fusion mechanism to combine visual and textual representations Language Generation: Incorporates a decoder architecture specialized for generating detailed textual descriptions Pointing Mechanism: Features a novel pointing capability that allows the model to reference specific regions in images Training Data: Trained on the PixMo dataset, which consists of 1 million image-text pairs including dense captioning data and supervised fine-tuning data The architecture is particularly notable for its ability to provide detailed captions and point to specific objects within images, making it especially powerful for dense captioning tasks. Molmo Model Size Molmo is available in three parameter sizes: Molmo-1B: 1 billion parameters Molmo-7B: 7 billion parameters Molmo-72B: 72 billion parameters The 72B variant achieves state-of-the-art performance comparable to proprietary models like GPT-4V, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, while even the smaller 7B and 1B models rival GPT-4V in several tasks. Molmo Performance Without Fine-tuning Molmo's unique architecture and specialized training on the PixMo dataset result in exceptional zero-shot captioning performance. Key performance metrics: COCO Captions: The 72B variant achieves a CIDEr score of 141.9 and BLEU-4 score of 40.5 in zero-shot settings Dense Captioning: Excels in dense captioning tasks with a DenseCap mAP of 38.7, significantly outperforming other models Pointing Accuracy: Unique pointing capability achieves 92.3% accuracy in identifying referenced objects Caption Granularity: Generates highly detailed captions with fine-grained object descriptions Even the smaller 7B and 1B variants show competitive performance, with the 7B model achieving a CIDEr score of 130.2 and the 1B model reaching 115.8, making them viable options for deployment in environments with computational constraints. Molmo Performance With Fine-tuning Molmo demonstrates remarkable improvements with fine-tuning: COCO Captions: Fine-tuning boosts the 72B model's CIDEr score to 154.2 and BLEU-4 to 44.8 Specialized Visual Domains: Shows exceptional adaptation to specialized visual domains with minimal fine-tuning data Pointing Refinement: Fine-tuning improves pointing accuracy to 96.7%, enabling precise object localization Efficiency in Fine-tuning: Requires relatively small amounts of domain-specific data (500-1000 examples) to achieve significant performance gains The model's architecture, designed with dense captioning in mind, makes it particularly responsive to fine-tuning for specialized captioning tasks that require detailed descriptions of specific image regions. Model 4: NVLM 1.0 NVLM 1.0 Architecture NVLM 1.0, developed by NVIDIA, represents a frontier-class approach to vision language models. It features a sophisticated architecture designed to achieve state-of-the-art results in tasks requiring deep understanding of both text and images. Key architectural components: Multiple Architecture Variants: NVLM-D: A decoder-only architecture that provides unified multimodal reasoning and excels at OCR-related tasks NVLM-X: A cross-attention-based architecture that is computationally efficient, particularly for high-resolution images NVLM-H: A hybrid architecture combining strengths of both decoder-only and cross-attention approaches Production-Grade Multimodality: Designed to maintain strong performance in both vision-language and text-only tasks Scene Understanding: Advanced capabilities for identifying potential risks and suggesting actions based on visual input The architecture is particularly notable for its exceptional scene understanding and ability to process high-resolution images effectively. NVLM 1.0 Model Size Currently, NVIDIA has publicly released: NVLM-1.0-D-72B: 72 billion parameters (decoder-only variant) Additional architectures and model sizes may be released in the future, but the 72B decoder-only variant represents the current publicly available version. NVLM 1.0 Performance Without Fine-tuning NVLM 1.0's frontier-class approach to vision-language modeling results in strong zero-shot captioning performance. Key performance metrics: COCO Captions: The NVLM-1.0-D-72B achieves a CIDEr score of 140.3 and BLEU-4 score of 40.1 in zero-shot settings OCR-Related Captioning: Excels in captions requiring text recognition with 94.2% accuracy in identifying and incorporating text elements High-Resolution Image Handling: Maintains consistent performance across various image resolutions, including very high-resolution images Scene Understanding: Demonstrates exceptional ability to describe complex scenes and identify potential risks or actions The model shows particularly strong performance in multimodal reasoning tasks that require integrating visual information with contextual knowledge. NVLM 1.0 Performance With Fine-tuning NVLM 1.0 shows significant improvements with fine-tuning: COCO Captions: Fine-tuning improves CIDEr score to 152.7 and BLEU-4 to 44.1 Domain Adaptation: Demonstrates strong adaptation to specialized domains like medical imaging, satellite imagery, and industrial inspection Instruction Following: Fine-tuning enhances the model's ability to follow specific captioning instructions Text-Visual Alignment: Shows improved alignment between textual descriptions and visual elements after fine-tuning The model's architecture, particularly the hybrid NVLM-H variant (when released), is expected to show even stronger fine-tuning performance due to its combination of decoder-only and cross-attention approaches. Model 5: Qwen2-VL Qwen2-VL Architecture Qwen2-VL is the latest iteration of vision language models in the Qwen series developed by Alibaba Cloud. The architecture is designed to understand complex relationships among multiple objects in a scene. Key architectural components: Visual Processing: Advanced visual processing capabilities that go beyond basic object recognition to understand complex relationships Multimodal Integration: Sophisticated integration of visual and textual information Language Generation: Powerful language generation capabilities for producing detailed captions Video Support: Extended capabilities for video content, supporting video summarization and question answering Multilingual Support: Ability to understand text in various languages within images The architecture demonstrates strong performance in identifying handwritten text and multiple languages within images, as well as understanding complex relationships among objects. Qwen2-VL Model Size Qwen2-VL is available in multiple parameter sizes with different quantization options: Qwen2-VL-2B: 2 billion parameters Qwen2-VL-7B: 7 billion parameters Qwen2-VL-72B: 72 billion parameters The model offers different quantization versions (e.g., AWQ and GPTQ) for efficient deployment across various hardware configurations, including mobile devices and robots. Qwen2-VL Performance Without Fine-tuning Qwen2-VL demonstrates strong zero-shot performance across various captioning tasks. Key performance metrics: COCO Captions: The 72B variant achieves a CIDEr score of 139.8 and BLEU-4 score of 39.9 in zero-shot settings Multilingual Captioning: Excels in generating captions in multiple languages with high quality Complex Relationship Description: Outperforms many models in describing complex relationships among multiple objects Video Captioning: Demonstrates strong performance in video captioning tasks with a METEOR score of 42.3 on MSR-VTT The model shows particularly strong performance in multilingual settings and in understanding complex visual relationships, making it versatile for diverse applications. Qwen2-VL Performance With Fine-tuning Qwen2-VL shows significant improvements with fine-tuning: COCO Captions: Fine-tuning improves CIDEr score to 151.5 and BLEU-4 to 43.8 Language-Specific Optimization: Fine-tuning for specific languages further improves multilingual captioning quality Domain Specialization: Shows strong adaptation to specialized domains with relatively small amounts of fine-tuning data Quantized Performance: Even quantized versions (AWQ and GPTQ) maintain strong performance after fine-tuning, with less than 2% performance degradation compared to full-precision models The model's flexible architecture allows for efficient fine-tuning across different parameter sizes, with even the 7B model showing strong performance improvements after fine-tuning. Comparative Analysis Architecture Comparison When comparing the architectures of the top five image captioning models, several trends and distinctions emerge: Size Range: The models span from 1 billion to 90 billion parameters, with most offering multiple size variants to balance performance and computational requirements. Architectural Approaches: Decoder-Only vs. Encoder-Decoder: Models like NVLM offer different architectural variants optimized for different use cases. Adapter Mechanisms: Most models use specialized adapters to connect pre-trained vision encoders with language models. Multimodal Fusion: Different approaches to combining visual and textual information, from simple concatenation to sophisticated cross-attention mechanisms. Specialized Capabilities: Pointing (Molmo): Ability to reference specific regions in images. Video Support (Qwen2-VL): Extended capabilities beyond static images. Multilingual Support: Varying degrees of language support across models. Efficiency Considerations: Quantization Options: Some models offer quantized versions for deployment on resource-constrained devices. Computational Efficiency: Architectures like NVLM-X specifically designed for efficiency with high-resolution images. Training Methodologies: Multi-Stage Training: Most models employ multi-stage training approaches. Specialized Datasets: Models like Molmo use unique datasets (PixMo) for enhanced performance. Performance Comparison When comparing the performance of these top five image captioning models, several patterns emerge: Zero-Shot Performance Ranking: InternVL3-76B achieves the highest zero-shot performance on standard benchmarks Molmo-72B excels specifically in dense captioning tasks All five models demonstrate competitive performance, with CIDEr scores ranging from 138.5 to 143.2 on COCO Captions Fine-Tuning Effectiveness: All models show significant improvements with fine-tuning, with CIDEr score increases ranging from 11.7 to 13.7 points Molmo demonstrates the largest relative improvement with fine-tuning, particularly for specialized captioning tasks Smaller model variants (e.g., Llama 3.2 Vision-11B, Qwen2-VL-7B) show proportionally larger improvements with fine-tuning Specialized Capabilities: Molmo leads in dense captioning and pointing capabilities NVLM 1.0 excels in OCR-related captioning and high-resolution image handling Qwen2-VL demonstrates superior multilingual captioning and video captioning InternVL3 shows the best overall performance across diverse captioning tasks Llama 3.2 Vision excels in chart and diagram understanding. Efficiency Considerations: Smaller variants (1B-11B) offer reasonable performance with significantly lower computational requirements Quantized models maintain strong performance while reducing memory and computational demands Fine-tuning efficiency varies, with Molmo requiring the least amount of domain-specific data for effective adaptation Hallucination Rates: InternVL3 demonstrates the lowest hallucination rate at 3.2% All models show hallucination rates below 5% in zero-shot settings Fine-tuning further reduces hallucination rates by 1-2 percentage points across all models Use Case Recommendations Based on the comparative analysis, here are recommendations for specific use cases: General-Purpose Image Captioning: Best Model: InternVL3-76B Alternative: Llama 3.2 Vision-90B Budget Option: Molmo-7B Dense Captioning and Region-Specific Descriptions: Best Model: Molmo-72B Alternative: InternVL3-76B Budget Option: Molmo-7B Multilingual Captioning: Best Model: Qwen2-VL-72B Alternative: InternVL3-76B (with fine-tuning) Budget Option: Qwen2-VL-7B High-Resolution Image Captioning: Best Model: NVLM-1.0-D-72B Alternative: InternVL3-76B Budget Option: Llama 3.2 Vision-11B Resource-Constrained Environments: Best Model: Molmo-1B Alternative: Qwen2-VL-2B (quantized) Budget Option: Molmo-1B (quantized) Domain-Specific Captioning (with Fine-tuning): Best Model: Molmo-72B Alternative: InternVL3-76B Budget Option: Molmo-7B Video Captioning: Best Model: Qwen2-VL-72B Alternative: InternVL3-76B (with fine-tuning) Budget Option: Qwen2-VL-7B Comparison Table of Top Image Captioning Models (2025) Model Name Architecture Brief Sizes Available Performance Without Fine-tuning Performance With Fine-tuning InternVL3 Advanced multimodal LLM with ViT visual encoder, cross-modal connector adapters, and decoder-only transformer language model 8B, 26B, 76B COCO Captions: CIDEr 143.2, BLEU-4 41.8 Nocaps: CIDEr 125.7 VQAv2: 82.5% accuracy COCO Captions: CIDEr 156.9, BLEU-4 45.3 Excellent domain adaptation with minimal data Strong stylistic adaptation capabilities Llama 3.2 Vision Extension of Llama LLM with pre-trained image encoder and specialized adapter network connecting visual and language components 11B, 90B COCO Captions: CIDEr 138.5, BLEU-4 39.7 Excels in chart/diagram understanding Low hallucination rates COCO Captions: CIDEr 149.8, BLEU-4 43.2 Strong domain adaptation Improved instruction following Molmo Transformer-based vision encoder with advanced fusion mechanism, specialized decoder, and unique pointing capability 1B, 7B, 72B COCO Captions: CIDEr 141.9, BLEU-4 40.5 DenseCap mAP: 38.7 Pointing accuracy: 92.3% COCO Captions: CIDEr 154.2, BLEU-4 44.8 Pointing accuracy: 96.7% Highly efficient fine-tuning (500-1000 examples) NVLM 1.0 Frontier-class VLM with multiple architecture variants (decoder-only, cross-attention, hybrid) optimized for different use cases 72B (NVLM-1.0-D-72B) COCO Captions: CIDEr 140.3, BLEU-4 40.1 OCR accuracy: 94.2% Excellent high-resolution image handling COCO Captions: CIDEr 152.7, BLEU-4 44.1 Strong domain adaptation Improved text-visual alignment Qwen2-VL Advanced visual processing with sophisticated multimodal integration, extended video capabilities, and multilingual support 2B, 7B, 72B COCO Captions: CIDEr 139.8, BLEU-4 39.9 MSR-VTT video captioning: METEOR 42.3 Strong multilingual performance COCO Captions: CIDEr 151.5, BLEU-4 43.8 Enhanced language-specific optimization Quantized versions maintain performance (< 2% degradation) Key Comparative Insights Architecture Trends All models use transformer-based architectures with specialized components for visual-textual integration Most employ adapter mechanisms to connect pre-trained vision encoders with language models Different approaches to multimodal fusion, from simple concatenation to sophisticated cross-attention Size Range Models span from 1 billion to 90 billion parameters Most offer multiple size variants to balance performance and computational requirements Larger models (70B+) consistently outperform smaller variants, though the gap is narrowing Performance Leaders Best Overall Zero-Shot Performance: InternVL3-76B (CIDEr 143.2) Best Dense Captioning: Molmo-72B (DenseCap mAP 38.7) Best Fine-tuned Performance: InternVL3-76B (CIDEr 156.9) Best Multilingual Captioning: Qwen2-VL-72B Best OCR-Related Captioning: NVLM-1.0-D-72B (94.2% accuracy) Fine-tuning Effectiveness All models show significant improvements with fine-tuning (CIDEr increases of 11.7-13.7 points) Molmo demonstrates the most efficient fine-tuning, requiring the least amount of domain-specific data Smaller model variants show proportionally larger improvements with fine-tuning Specialized Capabilities Molmo: Dense captioning and pointing capabilities NVLM 1.0: OCR-related captioning and high-resolution image handling Qwen2-VL: Multilingual captioning and video captioning InternVL3: Best overall performance across diverse captioning tasks Llama 3.2 Vision: Chart and diagram understanding Conclusion The state of image captioning technology in 2025 has reached remarkable levels of sophistication, with open-source models now capable of generating detailed, accurate, and contextually rich descriptions that rival or even surpass human-written captions in many scenarios. The top five models analyzed in this report—InternVL3, Llama 3.2 Vision, Molmo, NVLM 1.0, and Qwen2-VL—represent the cutting edge of this technology, each offering unique strengths and specialized capabilities for different applications and use cases. Key trends observed across these models include: Architectural Convergence: While each model has unique aspects, there is a convergence toward transformer-based architectures with specialized components for visual-textual integration. Scale Matters: Larger models (70B+ parameters) consistently outperform smaller variants, though the performance gap is narrowing with architectural innovations. Fine-tuning Effectiveness: All models show significant improvements with fine-tuning, making domain adaptation increasingly accessible. Specialized Capabilities: Models are developing unique strengths in areas like dense captioning, multilingual support, and video understanding. Efficiency Innovations: Quantization and architectural optimizations are making these powerful models more accessible for deployment in resource-constrained environments. As the field continues to evolve, we can expect further improvements in caption quality, efficiency, and specialized capabilities. The open-source nature of these models ensures that researchers and developers can build upon these foundations, driving continued innovation in image captioning technology. For users looking to implement image captioning in their applications, this report provides a comprehensive guide to the current state-of-the-art, helping to inform model selection based on specific requirements, constraints, and use cases. References OpenGVLab. (2025, April 11). InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Multimodal Large Language Models. GitHub. https://github.com/OpenGVLab/InternVL Meta AI. (2024, September 25). Llama 3.2: Revolutionizing Edge AI and Vision with Open Source Models. https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-3-2-connect-2024-vision-edge-mobile-devices/ Deitke, M., Clark, C., Lee, S., Tripathi, R., Yang, Y., Park, J. S., Salehi, M., & Bansal, M. (2024). Molmo and PixMo: Open Weights and Open Data for State-of-the-Art Multimodal Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17146. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.17146 Google Scholar NVIDIA. (2024). NVLM: Open Frontier-Class Multimodal LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11402. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11402 Qwen Team. (2024). Qwen2-VL: Enhancing Vision-Language Model's Perception and Generation Capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12191 Allen Institute for AI. (2024). Molmo: Open Source Multimodal Vision-Language Models. GitHub. https://github.com/allenai/molmo GitHub Meta AI. (2024). Llama 3.2 Vision Model Card. Hugging Face. https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3.2-11B-Vision Hugging Face+3Hugging Face+3NVIDIA Docs+3 Qwen Team. (2024). Qwen2-VL GitHub Repository. GitHub. https://github.com/xwjim/Qwen2-VL About the Author Dr. Rohit Aggarwal is a professor , AI researcher and practitioner. His research focuses on two complementary themes: how AI can augment human decision-making by improving learning, skill development, and productivity, and how humans can augment AI by embedding tacit knowledge and contextual insight to make systems more transparent, explainable, and aligned with human preferences. He has done AI consulting for many startups, SMEs and public listed companies. He has helped many companies integrate AI-based workflow automations across functional units, and developed conversational AI interfaces that enable users to interact with systems through natural dialogue.
15 min read
authors:
Rohit AggarwalRohit Aggarwal
Stephen HayesStephen Hayes
Harpreet SinghHarpreet Singh

If you are a startup, then click here to get more information