<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Pedro Vidigal</title>
    <link>https://pedrovidigal.com/</link>
    <description>Applied statistics on public data. Every claim traced to a committed snapshot, a resolvable citation, and a script that produces the number.</description>
    <language>en</language>
    <atom:link href="https://pedrovidigal.com/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>Four frontier models on the same support queue: what separates them, and what does not</title>
      <link>https://pedrovidigal.com/ai-operations/02-four-models-on-the-queue/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pedrovidigal.com/ai-operations/02-four-models-on-the-queue/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <category>Study</category>
      <description>A year of these rounds has taught me that most model comparisons are run on the work a system already does well. Ours was too. On the tickets our Support team closed without help, four frontier models are interchangeable: they name the root cause between 87% and 96% of the time and you could pick on price alone.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Putting an agent on the incident queue: what I measured before I trusted it</title>
      <link>https://pedrovidigal.com/ai-operations/01-agent-on-the-incident-queue/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pedrovidigal.com/ai-operations/01-agent-on-the-incident-queue/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <category>Study</category>
      <description>I run Applied AI and Support at Yugabyte. Both halves of that title report to the same outcome: how well, and how soon, we help a customer who needs us. So when we put an AI agent in front of the support engineers, the question was never &quot;which model scores highest&quot;. It was: can an engineer act on what this agent says, how often will it cost them time, and can we tell in advance.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Portuguese season as it stands</title>
      <link>https://pedrovidigal.com/studies/live-season-portugal/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pedrovidigal.com/studies/live-season-portugal/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <category>Live</category>
      <description>This page changes. Every other report here is dated and finished. This one tracks a season in progress against a test that was sealed before the season started, and it will keep changing until that test resolves on 15 November 2026.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How much of a booking index is real?</title>
      <link>https://pedrovidigal.com/studies/04-how-much-of-an-index-is-real/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pedrovidigal.com/studies/04-how-much-of-an-index-is-real/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <category>Study</category>
      <description>A club's yellows-per-foul rate over one season is mostly noise. 15% of the spread between clubs is a real club property; the other 85% is the Poisson accident of one season's bookings.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The lever nobody pulls</title>
      <link>https://pedrovidigal.com/studies/03-the-lever-nobody-pulls/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pedrovidigal.com/studies/03-the-lever-nobody-pulls/</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <category>Study</category>
      <description>Whether a foul is punished depends enormously on where and when it happens. A foul in your own defensive fifth is carded 31.4% of the time; the same offence in the attacking fifth, 8.9%. A foul in the opening quarter of an hour is carded 6.5% of the time; after ninety minutes, 25.6%.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A club that fouls with impunity, and the four ways I was wrong about it</title>
      <link>https://pedrovidigal.com/studies/02-fouling-with-impunity/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pedrovidigal.com/studies/02-fouling-with-impunity/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <category>Study</category>
      <description>Across eleven European leagues (58,013 completed matches, 115,984 team-matches, and 246 clubs with 150+ matches), raw yellow-cards-per-foul ratios make almost every dominant domestic club in Europe appear leniently officiated (r = −0.371). That apparent impunity is a compound artifact of three confounders: pre-match win expectation (1.098 heavy underdog vs. 0.856 heavy favourite median across all eleven leagues), non-foul conduct cards (dissent, delaying restarts, simulation) entering as a positive affine intercept (11.1%–38.8% league-mean share; 13%–47% across league-seasons), and fixture-level competitive intensity shared by both teams on the pitch (r = +0.283 on opponents' booking indices; 11 of 11 leagues rising across opponent-strength terciles 0.938 to 0.993 to 1.088).</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What free football data can still tell you</title>
      <link>https://pedrovidigal.com/studies/01-free-football-data/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pedrovidigal.com/studies/01-free-football-data/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <category>Study</category>
      <description>Public European football repositories exhibit severe longitudinal truncation, unrecorded rule differences in second-yellow accounting, non-foul conduct cards in the yellow-card numerator, and missing referee identifiers across 9 of 11 European leagues. Across 286 completed league-season files in 11 top divisions (2000-01 to 2025-26), only 179 files (62.6%) carry foul and card statistics (58,013 completed matches), while the remaining 107 files return HTTP 200 and parse cleanly into tables containing zero match events. Referee identity is recorded in only 55 of 286 files — continuously in England and Scotland, for two early seasons in Germany and Italy, and never in the other seven leagues.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hagen: How our AI support agent works</title>
      <link>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdWjtkqzXxA</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdWjtkqzXxA</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <category>Talk</category>
      <description>YugabyteDB Friday Tech Talks, Episode 162. How a production AI agent drafts the first root-cause analysis for a distributed database. A single customer diagnostic bundle can hold 50 to 100 million lines of logs. A deterministic layer extracts and normalises the evidence first; the model reasons over what that layer prepared rather than choosing what it reads. Covers the architecture, what worked, and where the system still falls short of its own target.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>From TextBlob to LLM Agents: Sentiment Model Selection for B2B Technical Support with CSAT Ground Truth</title>
      <link>https://aclanthology.org/2026.acl-industry.121/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://aclanthology.org/2026.acl-industry.121/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <category>Peer-reviewed</category>
      <description>ACL 2026 — Industry Track. A five-year case study of sentiment model selection for customer satisfaction (CSAT) prediction in B2B technical support. The evaluation uses the complete population of CSAT-rated tickets from an enterprise software company: over 500 tickets comprising ~2,500 customer comments from 100+ organizations over five years. 17 approaches across 5 paradigms, plus 11 fine-tuning experiments.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
