Base Career helps you apply smarter for this job.
Key skills for this role
We are looking for a mathematically rigorous engineer to own model numerics: how we measure, bound, and reason about the numerical behavior of the models we ship — and how we turn that analysis into deployment decisions.
The central question of this role is deceptively simple: given two numerically different versions of the same model, is the difference safe? Answering it well requires connecting things that are usually studied separately — floating-point drift and Hessian conditioning on one end, vehicle trajectory error on the other. You will build the tooling that makes that connection quantitative, and you will define the thresholds that turn it into a ship / no-ship decision.
This role is not: running an existing validation harness and reporting the numbers it produces. When a parity check fails, the expectation is that you can say which operation caused the divergence and why — not merely that a difference exceeded a threshold. The tooling exists to make that investigation fast; it does not replace the investigation itself.
What You'll Do
Validate Optimized implementations. Optimized implementations are supposed to be equivalent to their references. Establishing that rigorously, rather than by spot check, means deciding what equivalence should mean for a given operation, and designing the inputs that would expose a violation if one existed.
Connect tensor differences to behavioral disparity. Map low-level numerical differences from quantization, compilation, and precision reduction to downstream driving behavior, using both open-loop metrics (trajectory displacement error, perception IoU) and closed-loop outcomes — and identify the mechanism behind the mapping, not just the correlation.
Build sensitivity and robustness analysis tooling. Use Jacobian/Hessian-based methods to characterize how model outputs respond to weight and input perturbation, extend the same machinery to out-of-distribution inputs, and turn it into tooling that runs repeatedly across checkpoints — by engineers who are not you.
Build training dynamics observability. Design diagnostics that detect and root-cause training instabilities — gradient vanishing and explosion, loss spikes, silent divergence — including decompositions of gradient and update trajectories into loss-descent and oscillatory components under modern schedules such as WSD.
Make it cheap enough to always be on. Metric computation, gradient decomposition, and diagnostic logging have to run inside real distributed training jobs with negligible throughput cost and no OOM risk. Observability nobody can afford to enable is observability that doesn't exist.
Skip the repetitive application forms
Install the Base Career Chrome Extension and autofill job applications across major job boards with your profile.
Trusted by over 500,000 job seekers on Base Career
More from this employer
Wentzville, USA
Wentzville, USA
Austin, USA
Wentzville, USA
Wentzville, USA
Wentzville, USA
Austin, USA
Spring Hill, USA
Newark, USA
Warren, USA
Warren, USA
We are looking for a mathematically rigorous engineer to own model numerics: how we measure, bound, and reason about the numerical behavior of the models we ship — and how we turn that analysis into deployment decisions.
The central question of this role is deceptively simple: given two numerically different versions of the same model, is the difference safe? Answering it well requires connecting things that are usually studied separately — floating-point drift and Hessian conditioning on one end, vehicle trajectory error on the other. You will build the tooling that makes that connection quantitative, and you will define the thresholds that turn it into a ship / no-ship decision.
This role is not: running an existing validation harness and reporting the numbers it produces. When a parity check fails, the expectation is that you can say which operation caused the divergence and why — not merely that a difference exceeded a threshold. The tooling exists to make that investigation fast; it does not replace the investigation itself.
What You'll Do
Validate Optimized implementations. Optimized implementations are supposed to be equivalent to their references. Establishing that rigorously, rather than by spot check, means deciding what equivalence should mean for a given operation, and designing the inputs that would expose a violation if one existed.
Connect tensor differences to behavioral disparity. Map low-level numerical differences from quantization, compilation, and precision reduction to downstream driving behavior, using both open-loop metrics (trajectory displacement error, perception IoU) and closed-loop outcomes — and identify the mechanism behind the mapping, not just the correlation.
Build sensitivity and robustness analysis tooling. Use Jacobian/Hessian-based methods to characterize how model outputs respond to weight and input perturbation, extend the same machinery to out-of-distribution inputs, and turn it into tooling that runs repeatedly across checkpoints — by engineers who are not you.
Build training dynamics observability. Design diagnostics that detect and root-cause training instabilities — gradient vanishing and explosion, loss spikes, silent divergence — including decompositions of gradient and update trajectories into loss-descent and oscillatory components under modern schedules such as WSD.
Make it cheap enough to always be on. Metric computation, gradient decomposition, and diagnostic logging have to run inside real distributed training jobs with negligible throughput cost and no OOM risk. Observability nobody can afford to enable is observability that doesn't exist.
General Motors is a U.S. automotive company that designs, manufactures, and sells vehicles under brands including Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac. The company operates globally across vehicle engineering, manufacturing, sales, and mobility services.
Visit company websiteJobs and hiring trendsUSD 170600-261300 / year
Full-time
Senior
Apply faster on company sites with our extension.