Personalized Daily ArXiv Papers 2026-04-10

_{Papers on this page were re-scored with local agent CLI; the usage above is from the original run.}

Topic Coverage:

Table of contents by topic:

Architecture and Training Dynamics (15)

1. SAGE: Sign-Adaptive Gradient for Memory-Efficient LLM Optimization Authors: Wooin Lee, Hyun-Tae Kim

2. Sensitivity-Positional Co-Localization in GQA Transformers Authors: Manoj Chandrashekar Rao

3. DMax: Aggressive Parallel Decoding for dLLMs Authors: Zigeng Chen, Gongfan Fang, Xinyin Ma, Ruonan Yu, Xinchao Wang

4. Learning is Forgetting: LLM Training As Lossy Compression Authors: Henry C. Conklin, Tom Hosking, Tan Yi-Chern, Julian Gold, Jonathan D. Cohen, Thomas L. Griffiths, Max Bartolo, Seraphina Goldfarb-Tarrant

5. Dead Weights, Live Signals: Feedforward Graphs of Frozen Language Models Authors: Marcus Armstrong, Navid Ayoobi, Arjun Mukherjee

6. The Master Key Hypothesis: Unlocking Cross-Model Capability Transfer via Linear Subspace Alignment Authors: Rishab Balasubramanian, Pin-Jie Lin, Rituraj Sharma, Anjie Fang, Fardin Abdi, Viktor Rozgic, Zheng Du, Mohit Bansal, Tu Vu

7. The Depth Ceiling: On the Limits of Large Language Models in Discovering Latent Planning Authors: Yi Xu, Philipp Jettkant, Laura Ruis

8. HingeMem: Boundary Guided Long-Term Memory with Query Adaptive Retrieval for Scalable Dialogues Authors: Yijie Zhong, Yunfan Gao, Haofen Wang

9. Information-Theoretic Requirements for Gradient-Based Task Affinity Estimation in Multi-Task Learning Authors: Jasper Zhang, Bryan Cheng

10. Geometric Entropy and Retrieval Phase Transitions in Continuous Thermal Dense Associative Memory Authors: Tatiana Petrova, Evgeny Polyachenko, Radu State

11. GIRL: Generative Imagination Reinforcement Learning via Information-Theoretic Hallucination Control Authors: Prakul Sunil Hiremath

12. Neural Computers Authors: Mingchen Zhuge, Changsheng Zhao, Haozhe Liu, Zijian Zhou, Shuming Liu, Wenyi Wang, Ernie Chang, Gael Le Lan, Junjie Fei, Wenxuan Zhang, Yasheng Sun, Zhipeng Cai, Zechun Liu, Yunyang Xiong, Yining Yang, Yuandong Tian, Yangyang Shi, Vikas Chandra, J\"urgen Schmidhuber

13. An Illusion of Unlearning? Assessing Machine Unlearning Through Internal Representations Authors: Yichen Gao, Altay Unal, Akshay Rangamani, Zhihui Zhu

14. Information as Structural Alignment: A Dynamical Theory of Continual Learning Authors: Radu Negulescu

15. Score Shocks: The Burgers Equation Structure of Diffusion Generative Models Authors: Krisanu Sarkar

Training Algorithms That Change What Is Possible (1)

1. Blink: CPU-Free LLM Inference by Delegating the Serving Stack to GPU and SmartNIC Authors: Mohammad Siavashi, Mariano Scazzariello, Gerald Q. Maguire Jr., Dejan Kosti\'c, Marco Chiesa

Efficiency, Compression, and Large-Scale Training (3)

1. Initialisation Determines the Basin: Efficient Codebook Optimisation for Extreme LLM Quantization Authors: Ian W. Kennedy, Nafise Sadat Moosavi

2. The Detection-Extraction Gap: Models Know the Answer Before They Can Say It Authors: Hanyang Wang, Mingxuan Zhu

3. Probabilistic Language Tries: A Unified Framework for Compression, Decision Policies, and Execution Reuse Authors: Gregory Magarshak

Architecture and Training Dynamics (15)

1. SAGE: Sign-Adaptive Gradient for Memory-Efficient LLM Optimization

ArXiv ID: 2604.07663

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Also Matches: Efficiency, Compression, and Large-Scale Training

Authors: Wooin Lee, Hyun-Tae Kim

Abstract: The AdamW optimizer, while standard for LLM pretraining, is a critical memory bottleneck, consuming optimizer states equivalent to twice the model's size. Although light-state optimizers like SinkGD attempt to address this issue, we identify the embedding layer dilemma: these methods fail to handle the sparse, high-variance gradients inherent to embeddings, forcing a hybrid design that reverts to AdamW and partially negates the memory gains. We propose SAGE (Sign Adaptive GradiEnt), a novel optimizer that resolves this dilemma by replacing AdamW in this hybrid structure. SAGE combines a Lion-style update direction with a new, memory-efficient $O(d)$ adaptive scale. This scale acts as a "safe damper," provably bounded by 1.0, which tames high-variance dimensions more effectively than existing methods. This superior stability allows SAGE to achieve better convergence. On Llama models up to 1.3B parameters, our SAGE-based hybrid achieves new state-of-the-art perplexity, outperforming all baselines, including SinkGD hybrid, while significantly reducing optimizer state memory.

Comment: A bounded adaptive scale stabilizes sparse embedding gradients, replacing the AdamW component of a memory-efficient hybrid optimizer.

Topic Match: The main contribution is an optimizer addressing embedding instability; reduced optimizer-state storage supplies the efficiency match.

Relevance: 10 Novelty: 7

2. Sensitivity-Positional Co-Localization in GQA Transformers

ArXiv ID: 2604.07766

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Manoj Chandrashekar Rao

Abstract: We investigate a fundamental structural question in Grouped Query Attention (GQA) transformers: do the layers most sensitive to task correctness coincide with the layers where positional encoding adaptation has the greatest leverage? We term this the co-localization hypothesis and test it on Llama 3.1 8B, a 32-layer GQA model with a 4:1 query-to-key-value head ratio. We introduce \LSLORA, which restricts LoRA adaptation to layers identified via a novel correctness-differential hidden-state metric, and GARFA (GQA-Aware RoPE Frequency Adaptation), which attaches 8 learnable per-KV-head scalar multipliers to each targeted layer. Contrary to the co-localization hypothesis, we discover strong anti-localization: task-sensitive layers concentrate in the late network ($\ell\in{23\text{-}31}$) while RoPE-influential layers dominate the early network ($\ell\in{0\text{-}9}$), yielding Spearman $r_s = -0.735$ ($p = 1.66\times10^{-6}$). Despite this anti-localization, a 4-way cross-layer ablation shows that applying both interventions to the sensitivity-identified layers outperforms all alternative configurations by 4-16 percentage points across six diverse benchmarks (MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval+, MATH, MGSM, ARC), approaching Claude 3.5 Haiku on HumanEval+ (67.1% vs. 68.3%) at \$100 total compute cost.

Comment: Finds anti-localization between task-sensitive and RoPE-influential layers, with crossed interventions testing their interaction.

Topic Match: Directly examines where positional adaptation and task-sensitive computation operate within a GQA stack.

Relevance: 9 Novelty: 9

3. DMax: Aggressive Parallel Decoding for dLLMs

ArXiv ID: 2604.08302

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Zigeng Chen, Gongfan Fang, Xinyin Ma, Ruonan Yu, Xinchao Wang

Abstract: We present DMax, a new paradigm for efficient diffusion language models (dLLMs). It mitigates error accumulation in parallel decoding, enabling aggressive decoding parallelism while preserving generation quality. Unlike conventional masked dLLMs that decode through a binary mask-to-token transition, DMax reformulates decoding as a progressive self-refinement from mask embeddings to token embeddings. At the core of our approach is On-Policy Uniform Training, a novel training strategy that efficiently unifies masked and uniform dLLMs, equipping the model to recover clean tokens from both masked inputs and its own erroneous predictions. Building on this foundation, we further propose Soft Parallel Decoding. We represent each intermediate decoding state as an interpolation between the predicted token embedding and the mask embedding, enabling iterative self-revising in embedding space. Extensive experiments across a variety of benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of DMax. Compared with the original LLaDA-2.0-mini, our method improves TPF on GSM8K from 2.04 to 5.47 while preserving accuracy. On MBPP, it increases TPF from 2.71 to 5.86 while maintaining comparable performance. On two H200 GPUs, our model achieves an average of 1,338 TPS at batch size 1. Code is available at: https://github.com/czg1225/DMax

Comment: On-policy training teaches diffusion LMs to correct their own token errors during soft embedding refinement.

Topic Match: The contribution changes diffusion-LM training and the representation of intermediate decoding states.

Relevance: 9 Novelty: 8

4. Learning is Forgetting: LLM Training As Lossy Compression

ArXiv ID: 2604.07569

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Henry C. Conklin, Tom Hosking, Tan Yi-Chern, Julian Gold, Jonathan D. Cohen, Thomas L. Griffiths, Max Bartolo, Seraphina Goldfarb-Tarrant

Abstract: Despite the increasing prevalence of large language models (LLMs), we still have a limited understanding of how their representational spaces are structured. This limits our ability to interpret how and what they learn or relate them to learning in humans. We argue LLMs are best seen as an instance of lossy compression, where over training they learn by retaining only information in their training data relevant to their objective(s). We show pre-training results in models that are optimally compressed for next-sequence prediction, approaching the Information Bottleneck bound on compression. Across an array of open weights models, each compresses differently, likely due to differences in the data and training recipes used. However even across different families of LLMs the optimality of a model's compression, and the information present in it, can predict downstream performance on across a wide array of benchmarks, letting us directly link representational structure to actionable insights about model performance. In the general case the work presented here offers a unified Information-Theoretic framing for how these models learn that is deployable at scale.

Comment: Measures how pretraining moves representations toward the Information Bottleneck bound for next-sequence prediction.

Topic Match: The central contribution explains representation changes during pretraining through objective-dependent information retention.

Relevance: 9 Novelty: 7

5. Dead Weights, Live Signals: Feedforward Graphs of Frozen Language Models

ArXiv ID: 2604.08335

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Marcus Armstrong, Navid Ayoobi, Arjun Mukherjee

Abstract: We present a feedforward graph architecture in which heterogeneous frozen large language models serve as computational nodes, communicating through a shared continuous latent space via learned linear projections. Building on recent work demonstrating geometric compatibility between independently trained LLM latent spaces~\cite{armstrong2026thinking}, we extend this finding from static two-model steering to end-to-end trainable multi-node graphs, where projection matrices are optimized jointly via backpropagation through residual stream injection hooks. Three small frozen models (Llama-3.2-1B, Qwen2.5-1.5B, Gemma-2-2B) encode the input into a shared latent space whose aggregate signal is injected into two larger frozen models (Phi-3-mini, Mistral-7B), whose representations feed a lightweight cross-attention output node. With only 17.6M trainable parameters against approximately 12B frozen, the architecture achieves 87.3\% on ARC-Challenge, 82.8\% on OpenBookQA, and 67.2\% on MMLU, outperforming the best single constituent model by 11.4, 6.2, and 1.2 percentage points respectively, and outperforming parameter-matched learned classifiers on frozen single models by 9.1, 5.2, and 6.7 points. Gradient flow through multiple frozen model boundaries is empirically verified to be tractable, and the output node develops selective routing behavior across layer-2 nodes without explicit supervision.

Comment: Trainable linear projections turn heterogeneous frozen LLMs into a differentiable multi-node computation graph.

Topic Match: The structural contribution is how language-model modules connect and learn jointly through their interfaces.

Relevance: 8 Novelty: 7

6. The Master Key Hypothesis: Unlocking Cross-Model Capability Transfer via Linear Subspace Alignment

ArXiv ID: 2604.06377

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Rishab Balasubramanian, Pin-Jie Lin, Rituraj Sharma, Anjie Fang, Fardin Abdi, Viktor Rozgic, Zheng Du, Mohit Bansal, Tu Vu

Abstract: We investigate whether post-trained capabilities can be transferred across models without retraining, with a focus on transfer across different model scales. We propose the Master Key Hypothesis, which states that model capabilities correspond to directions in a low-dimensional latent subspace that induce specific behaviors and are transferable across models through linear alignment. Based on this hypothesis, we introduce UNLOCK, a training-free and label-free framework that extracts a capability direction by contrasting activations between capability-present and capability-absent Source variants, aligns it with a Target model through a low-rank linear transformation, and applies it at inference time to elicit the behavior. Experiments on reasoning behaviors, including Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and mathematical reasoning, demonstrate substantial improvements across model scales without training. For example, transferring CoT reasoning from Qwen1.5-14B to Qwen1.5-7B yields an accuracy gain of 12.1% on MATH, and transferring a mathematical reasoning direction from Qwen3-4B-Base to Qwen3-14B-Base improves AGIEval Math accuracy from 61.1% to 71.3%, surpassing the 67.8% achieved by the 14B post-trained model. Our analysis shows that the success of transfer depends on the capabilities learned during pre-training, and that our intervention amplifies latent capabilities by sharpening the output distribution toward successful reasoning trajectories.

Comment: Low-rank alignment transfers capability directions between differently sized frozen LLMs.

Topic Match: Latent-space organization is the nearest connection, but the core contribution is inference-time steering of post-trained reasoning capabilities.

Relevance: 4 Novelty: 8

7. The Depth Ceiling: On the Limits of Large Language Models in Discovering Latent Planning

ArXiv ID: 2604.06427

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Yi Xu, Philipp Jettkant, Laura Ruis

Abstract: The viability of chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring hinges on models being unable to reason effectively in their latent representations. Yet little is known about the limits of such latent reasoning in LLMs. We test these limits by studying whether models can discover multi-step planning strategies without supervision on intermediate steps and execute them latently, within a single forward pass. Using graph path-finding tasks that precisely control the number of required latent planning steps, we uncover a striking limitation unresolved by massive scaling: tiny transformers trained from scratch discover strategies requiring up to three latent steps, fine-tuned GPT-4o and Qwen3-32B reach five, and GPT-5.4 attains seven under few-shot prompting. Although the maximum latent planning depth models can learn during training is five, the discovered strategy generalizes up to eight latent steps at test-time. This reveals a dissociation between the ability to discover a latent strategy under final-answer supervision alone and the ability to execute it once discovered. If similar limits hold more broadly, strategies requiring multiple coordinated latent planning steps may need to be explicitly taught or externalized, lending credence to CoT monitoring.

Comment: Separates the depth of a latent planning strategy a model can discover from the depth it can execute once learned.

Topic Match: Computation analysis is the nearest connection, but the core subject is latent reasoning capacity and CoT monitoring.

Relevance: 4 Novelty: 9

8. HingeMem: Boundary Guided Long-Term Memory with Query Adaptive Retrieval for Scalable Dialogues

ArXiv ID: 2604.06845

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Yijie Zhong, Yunfan Gao, Haofen Wang

Abstract: Long-term memory is critical for dialogue systems that support continuous, sustainable, and personalized interactions. However, existing methods rely on continuous summarization or OpenIE-based graph construction paired with fixed Top-\textit{k} retrieval, leading to limited adaptability across query categories and high computational overhead. In this paper, we propose HingeMem, a boundary-guided long-term memory that operationalizes event segmentation theory to build an interpretable indexing interface via boundary-triggered hyperedges over four elements: person, time, location, and topic. When any such element changes, HingeMem draws a boundary and writes the current segment, thereby reducing redundant operations and preserving salient context. To enable robust and efficient retrieval under diverse information needs, HingeMem introduces query-adaptive retrieval mechanisms that jointly decide (a) \textit{what to retrieve}: determine the query-conditioned routing over the element-indexed memory; (b) \textit{how much to retrieve}: control the retrieval depth based on the estimated query type. Extensive experiments across LLM scales (from 0.6B to production-tier models; \textit{e.g.}, Qwen3-0.6B to Qwen-Flash) on LOCOMO show that HingeMem achieves approximately $20\%$ relative improvement over strong baselines without query categories specification, while reducing computational cost (68\%$\downarrow$ question answering token cost compared to HippoRAG2). Beyond advancing memory modeling, HingeMem's adaptive retrieval makes it a strong fit for web applications requiring efficient and trustworthy memory over extended interactions.

Comment: Event boundaries create dialogue-memory records that support query-dependent retrieval depth.

Topic Match: Memory organization is the nearest architectural connection, but the contribution is an external dialogue retrieval system.

Relevance: 3 Novelty: 5

9. Information-Theoretic Requirements for Gradient-Based Task Affinity Estimation in Multi-Task Learning

ArXiv ID: 2604.07848

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Jasper Zhang, Bryan Cheng

Abstract: Multi-task learning shows strikingly inconsistent results -- sometimes joint training helps substantially, sometimes it actively harms performance -- yet the field lacks a principled framework for predicting these outcomes. We identify a fundamental but unstated assumption underlying gradient-based task analysis: tasks must share training instances for gradient conflicts to reveal genuine relationships. When tasks are measured on the same inputs, gradient alignment reflects shared mechanistic structure; when measured on disjoint inputs, any apparent signal conflates task relationships with distributional shift. We discover this sample overlap requirement exhibits a sharp phase transition: below 30% overlap, gradient-task correlations are statistically indistinguishable from noise; above 40%, they reliably recover known biological structure. Comprehensive validation across multiple datasets achieves strong correlations and recovers biological pathway organization. Standard benchmarks systematically violate this requirement -- MoleculeNet operates at <5% overlap, TDC at 8-14% -- far below the threshold where gradient analysis becomes meaningful. This provides the first principled explanation for seven years of inconsistent MTL results.

Comment: Controlled sample overlap tests when gradient alignment measures task relationships rather than distribution differences.

Topic Match: Training-dynamics diagnostics are the nearest topic, but the claims concern biological multi-task learning and its datasets.

Relevance: 3 Novelty: 8

10. Geometric Entropy and Retrieval Phase Transitions in Continuous Thermal Dense Associative Memory

ArXiv ID: 2604.07401

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Tatiana Petrova, Evgeny Polyachenko, Radu State

Abstract: We study the thermodynamic memory capacity of modern Hopfield networks (Dense Associative Memory models) with continuous states under geometric constraints, extending classical analyses of pairwise associative memory. We derive thermodynamic phase boundaries for Dense Associative Memory networks with exponential capacity $p = e^{\alpha N}$, comparing Gaussian (LSE) and Epanechnikov (LSR) kernels. For continuous neurons on an $N$-sphere, the geometric entropy depends solely on the spherical geometry, not the kernel. In the sharp-kernel regime, the maximum theoretical capacity $\alpha = 0.5$ is achieved at zero temperature; below this threshold, a critical line separates retrieval from a spin-glass phase. The two kernels differ qualitatively in their phase boundary structure: for LSE, the retrieval region extends to arbitrarily high temperatures as $\alpha \to 0$, but interference from spurious patterns is always present. For LSR, the finite support introduces a threshold $\alpha_{\text{th}}$ below which no spurious patterns contribute to the noise floor, producing a qualitatively different retrieval regime in this sub-threshold region. These results advance the theory of high-capacity associative memory and clarify fundamental limits of retrieval robustness in modern attention-like memory architectures.

Comment: Kernel-dependent phase boundaries isolate how finite support changes associative-memory interference and retrieval capacity.

Topic Match: Attention-like mechanism theory is the closest fit, but the analysis concerns standalone associative memories rather than trained language models.

Relevance: 3 Novelty: 7

11. GIRL: Generative Imagination Reinforcement Learning via Information-Theoretic Hallucination Control

ArXiv ID: 2604.07426

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Prakul Sunil Hiremath

Abstract: Model-based reinforcement learning (MBRL) improves sample efficiency by optimizing policies inside imagined rollouts, but long-horizon planning degrades when model errors compound and imagined trajectories drift off the training manifold. We introduce GIRL (Generative Imagination Reinforcement Learning), a latent world-model framework that addresses this failure mode with two key components. First, a cross-modal grounding signal derived from a frozen foundation model (DINOv2) anchors the latent transition prior to a semantically consistent embedding space, penalizing inconsistent or implausible predictions. Second, an uncertainty-adaptive trust-region bottleneck interprets the KL regularizer as the Lagrange multiplier of a constrained optimization problem, restricting imagination drift within a learned region calibrated by Expected Information Gain and a Relative Performance Loss signal. We re-derive a value-gap bound using the Performance Difference Lemma and Integral Probability Metrics, yielding a bound that remains informative as the discount factor approaches one and connects the objective to real-environment regret. Experiments across three benchmark suites, including DeepMind Control, Adroit Hand Manipulation, and Meta-World with visual distractors, show that GIRL reduces latent rollout drift by 38 to 61 percent across tasks relative to DreamerV3, improves asymptotic return, and requires fewer environment interactions on long-horizon tasks. GIRL also outperforms TD-MPC2 on sparse-reward and high-contact settings under standard evaluation metrics. A distilled-prior variant reduces inference overhead and improves computational efficiency relative to the full model.

Comment: Grounding and an uncertainty-adaptive trust region constrain error accumulation in learned rollout dynamics.

Topic Match: Training stability mechanisms are the nearest connection, but they apply to reinforcement-learning world models.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 6

12. Neural Computers

ArXiv ID: 2604.06425

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Mingchen Zhuge, Changsheng Zhao, Haozhe Liu, Zijian Zhou, Shuming Liu, Wenyi Wang, Ernie Chang, Gael Le Lan, Junjie Fei, Wenxuan Zhang, Yasheng Sun, Zhipeng Cai, Zechun Liu, Yunyang Xiong, Yining Yang, Yuandong Tian, Yangyang Shi, Vikas Chandra, J\"urgen Schmidhuber

Abstract: We propose a new frontier: Neural Computers (NCs) -- an emerging machine form that unifies computation, memory, and I/O in a learned runtime state. Unlike conventional computers, which execute explicit programs, agents, which act over external execution environments, and world models, which learn environment dynamics, NCs aim to make the model itself the running computer. Our long-term goal is the Completely Neural Computer (CNC): the mature, general-purpose realization of this emerging machine form, with stable execution, explicit reprogramming, and durable capability reuse. As an initial step, we study whether early NC primitives can be learned solely from collected I/O traces, without instrumented program state. Concretely, we instantiate NCs as video models that roll out screen frames from instructions, pixels, and user actions (when available) in CLI and GUI settings. These implementations show that learned runtimes can acquire early interface primitives, especially I/O alignment and short-horizon control, while routine reuse, controlled updates, and symbolic stability remain open. We outline a roadmap toward CNCs around these challenges. If overcome, CNCs could establish a new computing paradigm beyond today's agents, world models, and conventional computers.

Comment: A learned runtime state unifies computation, memory, and I/O in the proposed neural computer.

Topic Match: Learned computation is the nearest architectural connection, but the prototypes are video models of CLI and GUI execution.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 8

13. An Illusion of Unlearning? Assessing Machine Unlearning Through Internal Representations

ArXiv ID: 2604.08271

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Yichen Gao, Altay Unal, Akshay Rangamani, Zhihui Zhu

Abstract: While numerous machine unlearning (MU) methods have recently been developed with promising results in erasing the influence of forgotten data, classes, or concepts, they are also highly vulnerable-for example, simple fine-tuning can inadvertently reintroduce erased concepts. In this paper, we address this contradiction by examining the internal representations of unlearned models, in contrast to prior work that focuses primarily on output-level behavior. Our analysis shows that many state-of-the-art MU methods appear successful mainly due to a misalignment between last-layer features and the classifier, a phenomenon we call feature-classifier misalignment. In fact, hidden features remain highly discriminative, and simple linear probing can recover near-original accuracy. Assuming neural collapse in the original model, we further demonstrate that adjusting only the classifier can achieve negligible forget accuracy while preserving retain accuracy, and we corroborate this with experiments using classifier-only fine-tuning. Motivated by these findings, we propose MU methods based on a class-mean features (CMF) classifier, which explicitly enforces alignment between features and classifiers. Experiments on standard benchmarks show that CMF-based unlearning reduces forgotten information in representations while maintaining high retain accuracy, highlighting the need for faithful representation-level evaluation of MU.

Comment: Linear probes reveal that apparent forgetting can arise from feature-classifier misalignment.

Topic Match: Representation mechanisms are the nearest connection, but machine unlearning is the paper's core subject.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 7

14. Information as Structural Alignment: A Dynamical Theory of Continual Learning

ArXiv ID: 2604.07108

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Radu Negulescu

Abstract: Catastrophic forgetting is not an engineering failure. It is a mathematical consequence of storing knowledge as global parameter superposition. Existing methods, such as regularization, replay, and frozen subnetworks, add external mechanisms to a shared-parameter substrate. None derives retention from the learning dynamics themselves. This paper introduces the Informational Buildup Framework (IBF), an alternative substrate for continual learning, based on the premise that information is the achievement of structural alignment rather than stored content. In IBF, two equations govern the dynamics: a Law of Motion that drives configuration toward higher coherence, and Modification Dynamics that persistently deform the coherence landscape in response to localized discrepancies. Memory, agency, and self-correction arise from these dynamics rather than being added as separate modules. We first demonstrate the full lifecycle in a transparent two-dimensional toy model, then validate across three domains: a controlled non-stationary world, chess evaluated independently by Stockfish, and Split-CIFAR-100 with a frozen ViT encoder. Across all three, IBF achieves replay-superior retention without storing raw data. We observe near-zero forgetting on CIFAR-100 (BT = -0.004), positive backward transfer in chess (+38.5 cp), and 43% less forgetting than replay in the controlled domain. In chess, the framework achieves a mean behavioral advantage of +88.9 +/- 2.8 cp under independent evaluation, exceeding MLP and replay baselines.

Comment: Persistent changes to a coherence landscape replace replay-based retention with memory emerging from learning dynamics.

Topic Match: An alternative learning substrate is architecturally related, but the demonstrations concern toy dynamics, chess, and frozen-encoder image classification.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 8

15. Score Shocks: The Burgers Equation Structure of Diffusion Generative Models

ArXiv ID: 2604.07404

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Krisanu Sarkar

Abstract: We analyze the score field of a diffusion generative model through a Burgers-type evolution law. For VE diffusion, the heat-evolved data density implies that the score obeys viscous Burgers in one dimension and the corresponding irrotational vector Burgers system in $\R^d$, giving a PDE view of \emph{speciation transitions} as the sharpening of inter-mode interfaces. For any binary decomposition of the noised density into two positive heat solutions, the score separates into a smooth background and a universal $\tanh$ interfacial term determined by the component log-ratio; near a regular binary mode boundary this yields a normal criterion for speciation. In symmetric binary Gaussian mixtures, the criterion recovers the critical diffusion time detected by the midpoint derivative of the score and agrees with the spectral criterion of Biroli, Bonnaire, de~Bortoli, and M\'ezard (2024). After subtracting the background drift, the inter-mode layer has a local Burgers $\tanh$ profile, which becomes global in the symmetric Gaussian case with width $\sigma_\tau^2/a$. We also quantify exponential amplification of score errors across this layer, show that Burgers dynamics preserves irrotationality, and use a change of variables to reduce the VP-SDE to the VE case, yielding a closed-form VP speciation time. Gaussian-mixture formulas are verified to machine precision, and the local theorem is checked numerically on a quartic double-well.

Comment: A Burgers evolution law yields local mode-separation criteria and quantifies amplification of score errors.

Topic Match: Generative-model dynamics are the nearest topic, but the contribution is continuous-diffusion PDE theory without a language-model training setting.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 6

Training Algorithms That Change What Is Possible (1)

1. Blink: CPU-Free LLM Inference by Delegating the Serving Stack to GPU and SmartNIC

ArXiv ID: 2604.07609

Primary Topic: Training Algorithms That Change What Is Possible

Authors: Mohammad Siavashi, Mariano Scazzariello, Gerald Q. Maguire Jr., Dejan Kosti\'c, Marco Chiesa

Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM) inference is rapidly becoming a core datacenter service, yet current serving stacks keep the host CPU on the critical path for orchestration and token-level control. This makes LLM performance sensitive to CPU interference, undermining application colocation and forcing operators to reserve CPU headroom, leaving substantial capacity unutilized. We introduce Blink, an end-to-end serving architecture that removes the host CPU from the steady-state inference path by redistributing responsibilities across a SmartNIC and a GPU. Blink offloads request handling to the SmartNIC, which delivers inputs directly into GPU memory via RDMA, and replaces host-driven scheduling with a persistent GPU kernel that performs batching, scheduling, and KV-cache management without CPU involvement. Evaluated against TensorRT-LLM, vLLM, and SGLang, Blink outperforms all baselines even in isolation, reducing pre-saturation P99 TTFT by up to 8.47$\times$ and P99 TPOT by up to 3.40$\times$, improving decode throughput by up to 2.1$\times$, and reducing energy per token by up to 48.6$\%$. Under CPU interference, Blink maintains stable performance, while existing systems degrade by up to two orders of magnitude.

Comment: GPU and SmartNIC orchestration removes the host CPU from the steady-state inference path.

Topic Match: Systems architecture is the nearest topic, but the gains concern serving throughput and interference resistance rather than training.

Relevance: 5 Novelty: 8

Efficiency, Compression, and Large-Scale Training (3)

1. Initialisation Determines the Basin: Efficient Codebook Optimisation for Extreme LLM Quantization

ArXiv ID: 2604.08118

Primary Topic: Efficiency, Compression, and Large-Scale Training

Authors: Ian W. Kennedy, Nafise Sadat Moosavi

Abstract: Additive quantization enables extreme LLM compression with O(1) lookup-table dequantization, making it attractive for edge deployment. Yet at 2-bit precision, it often fails catastrophically, even with extensive search and finetuning. We show that the dominant bottleneck is codebook initialisation. Greedy sequential initialisation frequently places the model in poor optimisation regions that subsequent beam search and PV-tuning struggle to overcome. We analyse this behaviour through the representational ratio \r{ho} = N/KM, which characterises the relationship between weight groups and codebook capacity, and propose OA-EM, an output-aware EM initialisation method using Hessian-weighted Mahalanobis distance. Across compression rates, search budgets, and three architectures (Llama 3.2 3B, Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2.5 3B), OA-EM consistently produces better solutions after PV-tuning and dominates the quality-compute frontier. The severity of the bottleneck scales with \r{ho}: moderate at 3 bpp but extreme at 2 bpp, where poor initialisation can degrade perplexity by orders of magnitude. More broadly, our results highlight the importance of optimisation geometry in compressed model spaces, where initialisation can dominate subsequent search and fine-tuning.

Comment: Output-aware codebook initialization determines whether extreme additive quantization reaches a recoverable optimization basin.

Topic Match: Compression is the nearest topic, but the core subject is post-training codebook optimization for deployment.

Relevance: 4 Novelty: 6

2. The Detection-Extraction Gap: Models Know the Answer Before They Can Say It

ArXiv ID: 2604.06613

Primary Topic: Efficiency, Compression, and Large-Scale Training

Authors: Hanyang Wang, Mingxuan Zhu

Abstract: Modern reasoning models continue generating long after the answer is already determined. Across five model configurations, two families, and three benchmarks, we find that 52--88% of chain-of-thought tokens are produced after the answer is recoverable from a partial prefix. This post-commitment generation reveals a structural phenomenon: the detection-extraction gap. Free continuations from early prefixes recover the correct answer even at 10% of the trace, while forced extraction fails on 42% of these cases. The answer is recoverable from the model state, yet prompt-conditioned decoding fails to extract it. We formalize this mismatch via a total-variation bound between free and forced continuation distributions, yielding quantitative estimates of suffix-induced shift. Exploiting this asymmetry, we propose Black-box Adaptive Early Exit (BAEE), which uses free continuations for both detection and extraction, truncating 70--78% of serial generation while improving accuracy by 1--5pp across all models. For thinking-mode models, early exit prevents post-commitment overwriting, yielding gains of up to 5.8pp; a cost-optimized variant achieves 68--73% reduction at a median of 9 API calls. Code is available at https://github.com/EdWangLoDaSc/know2say.

Comment: At fixed partial reasoning prefixes, free continuation recovers answers that forced extraction misses.

Topic Match: Efficiency is the closest fit, but the intervention shortens inference-time reasoning rather than changing training.

Relevance: 4 Novelty: 8

3. Probabilistic Language Tries: A Unified Framework for Compression, Decision Policies, and Execution Reuse

ArXiv ID: 2604.06228

Primary Topic: Efficiency, Compression, and Large-Scale Training

Authors: Gregory Magarshak

Abstract: We introduce probabilistic language tries (PLTs), a unified representation that makes explicit the prefix structure implicitly defined by any generative model over sequences. By assigning to each outgoing edge the conditional probability of the corresponding token or action, a PLT simultaneously serves as: (i) an optimal lossless compressor via frequency-weighted interval encoding, generalizing arithmetic coding to model-conditioned distributions; (ii) a policy representation for sequential decision problems including games, search, and robotic control; and (iii) a memoization index that lets repeated inference queries be answered by structured retrieval rather than full model execution. The central technical result is a prior-guided caching theorem: under a stationary generative distribution, a PLT-guided cache achieves strictly lower expected inference cost than any empirical-frequency cache for all query counts below a threshold that grows with the concentration of the prior. This converts O(n^2) transformer attention cost into an expected cost of p_r * O(log N) + (1 - p_r) * O(n^2), where p_r is the prior-estimated reuse probability and N is the artifact store size. We further introduce a hybrid compression architecture decomposing any dataset into a PLT-covered majority and a sparse residual store, connecting arithmetic coding with Kolmogorov-style program representations and rate-distortion theory. We instantiate the framework across chess, web search, robotics, organizational workflows, and LLM inference, demonstrating that compression, decision making, and computational reuse are all derived from a single probability measure on sequence space.

Comment: Prior-guided prefix caching reduces expected repeated-query cost within an explicit finite-query regime.

Topic Match: Efficiency is the nearest topic, but the central gain is inference reuse and sequence compression rather than compression of model or training state.

Relevance: 4 Novelty: 7

Paper Selection Prompt

System Prompt

You are a helpful paper reading assistant whose job is to read daily posts from ArXiv and identify a few papers that your friend will enjoy reading. Your job is to carefully read the paper titles and abstracts below and find the ones that match the criteria below.

User Prompt

Relevant Topics

This is a training-side feed for someone who builds and modifies model internals. The centre of gravity is what a frontier model is made of and how it is trained: architecture, training dynamics, and the decisions a lab actually made. MoE is still in scope, but only when the contribution changes the design space, not when it tunes an existing MoE.

Keep a paper when its CORE CONTRIBUTION falls in one of the five topics below. Filter it when the topic is merely the setting for a downstream application, a benchmark, or a product result.

THE SUBJECT IS LANGUAGE-MODEL TRAINING. Every topic below is scoped to it. A technique named in one of them -- decentralised or asynchronous training, discrete diffusion, byte-level modelling, 1-bit weights, mixture-of-experts -- earns nothing when the model being trained is an image generator, a recommender, a scientific surrogate, or a vision classifier. Match on what is being trained, not on the vocabulary in the abstract.

THE ONE QUESTION THAT DECIDES A HIGH SCORE, asked before the topic list:

Does this paper REMOVE or REPLACE a component that everyone downstream inherits without thinking, or DECOUPLE two quantities the field currently conflates -- and does it say which end is held fixed while the other moves?

A paper that ADDS a mechanism on top of existing primitives is ordinary work, however good the numbers. A paper that takes one away, or splits one knob into two, is the reason this feed exists. Papers whose gains are CONDITIONAL (only above some batch size, only in one budget regime, only with an extra training stage) are ordinary work too, even when the mechanism is new: a conditional win is a new knob, not a removed one.

1. Frontier Model Releases and Technical Reports (primary) - Keep: model and technical reports that DISCLOSE architecture or training decisions -- layer and attention design, normalization and residual choices, hybrid attention/state-space stacks, sparsity and expert layout, tokenizer and vocabulary decisions, data mixture and curriculum, optimizer and schedule, precision and numerics, stability fixes and what broke; open-weight releases whose report explains a choice rather than only reporting it. - Filter: releases that are a scorecard -- benchmark tables, a capability announcement, a product or API launch, or a report that names its recipe without saying why it was chosen. A frontier name in the title earns nothing on its own.

2. Architecture and Training Dynamics (primary) - Keep: new or analysed architectural mechanisms (attention variants, normalization and residual design, state-space and recurrent sequence modelling, positional schemes, dynamic or modular computation, tokenizer-free and byte-level or learned-chunking stacks, non-autoregressive and discrete-diffusion generation); optimizers, preconditioners, and parameterisations, especially hyperparameter transfer across scale; training-dynamics and stability analysis that explains why large models train the way they do; work that removes a standard component (normalization, weight decay, positional encoding, the tokenizer, left-to-right decoding) and shows the model still trains. - Filter: applying an existing architecture to a new task or benchmark with no mechanistic insight; an architectural tweak evaluated only at toy scale with no account of what it costs.

3. Large-Scale Training Systems - Keep: distributed training ALGORITHMS that change what is possible, not only what is fast -- asynchronous, low-communication and decentralised optimisation, sharding and parallelism schemes with a new invariant, numerics and low-precision training (FP8, FP4, ternary and 1-bit) when the claim is about training stability rather than a kernel; scaling-law work that informs how a run is configured, including data-constrained and repeated-data regimes and critical batch size. - Filter: kernel engineering, communication scheduling, overlap, caching, serving and inference throughput. This is a real exclusion, not a soft one: work whose contribution is "the same model, faster" belongs to someone else's feed even when it is excellent and even when it is about MoE.

4. MoE Where It Changes the Design Space - Keep: routing that is newly differentiable or newly stable; the training/inference router gap; expert collapse and what actually prevents it; expert granularity, shared experts and layout when a new axis is opened rather than tuned; dense-to-MoE conversion; MoE scaling laws that fix one quantity and vary another; analyses that carry a criterion which could have failed (a random-guess baseline, an ablation with a predicted sign) rather than similarity heatmaps. - Filter: MoE SYSTEMS and inference work (expert parallelism, all-to-all schedules, grouped GEMM, offload, prefetching, capacity and scheduling tricks, compression for serving); MoE surveys; papers that train on top of a MoE without a routing, balancing, stability, or structural contribution; "mixture of experts" in the classical ensemble or recommender sense. - The exclusion above is about MAKING MoE RUN FASTER, and it does not reach routing and expert design. A paper on how tokens are assigned to experts, how experts specialise, how balance is enforced, or how a dense model becomes sparse stays fully in scope and scores on its merits, even when the mechanism is a small one.

5. Efficiency and Compression When the Mechanism Is New - Keep: quantization, sparsity, pruning and low-rank work whose mechanism is new and whose gain is unconditional; compression that changes what can be trained, not only what can be served; attribution of a model's behaviour to its data. - Filter: tuned variants of standard efficiency methods; deployment and serving engineering; anything whose headline is a compression ratio with no account of what was given up.

Also keep, even though they read like evaluation work, because the field has no one checking them: - benchmark validity itself: contamination, saturation, LLM-as-judge reliability, whether a benchmark measures what it claims. A paper AUDITING a benchmark is in scope; a paper PROPOSING one is not.

Subjects He Has Never Once Kept

Measured, not guessed. Over nine months where he was actively curating, 4953 papers passed this filter and 274 made his list -- a keep rate of 5.2%. Each subject below appeared in the rejected pile the number of times shown and appeared ZERO times in his entire 508-entry list.

Filter a paper whose CORE SUBJECT is one of these. The count is the evidence; where a paper only mentions the term in passing while contributing somewhere in the five topics above, keep it.

variational methods and inference (52) unlearning (41) long-context methods (40) neural operators (35) time series (35) vision transformers (35) parameter-efficient fine-tuning (28) stochastic gradient analysis (21) LLM safety (20) LLM reasoning as a subject (20) hallucination (20) sequence modelling as a subject (19) differential equations (19) spiking neural networks (17) post-training quantization (16) mechanistic interpretability as a framing (15) test-time scaling (13)

Two more he kept exactly once each, so suppress rather than drop: graph neural networks (1 of 42), knowledge distillation (1 of 39).

Do NOT extend this list by analogy. Four subjects that look like they belong here were checked and do not: diffusion models (8.1% kept), prompting (10.0%), benchmarks (9.1%) and neural architecture search (13.3%) all sit ABOVE his 5.2% base rate.

Note the one distinction that matters: he rejects papers FRAMED as interpretability, while analysis of how a trained model's computation is organised is among his highest-rated work. The subject is the framing, not the act of analysing.

Leave these to the hotspot digest unless the core contribution clearly falls in one of the five topics above: - agent, tooling, and RAG launches, and agent framework papers - new benchmarks, leaderboards, and evaluation-only papers - interpretability that stops at cataloguing features, with nothing said about the mechanism that produced them. Analysis of how a trained model's computation is organised -- what drives expert selection, what a circuit computes, how representations reorganise across training -- is IN scope, not here. - memory mechanisms and agent memory systems - world models, exploration, and reinforcement learning - alignment and post-training (RLHF, DPO, GRPO, RFT, instruction tuning), EXCEPT where the subject is how post-training destabilises the architecture itself - downstream applications in medical imaging, segmentation, 3D vision, video understanding, information retrieval, summarization, recommendation, machine translation, speech recognition, time series, knowledge graphs, and similar domains

Scoring Criteria

Score five independent axes from 1 to 10: Relevance, Novelty, Evidence, Load, Proximity.

They answer different questions and must not be collapsed. Relevance: is this the kind of work this feed is for. Evidence: did the paper earn its claim. Load: what does it cost to get the usable result out. Proximity: how close is it to what the reader is working on right now (see Active Lines below).

Novelty is scored for continuity with the archive and for the hotspot spotlight cutoffs, and it does NOT order the feed. Measured against 274 hand-tiered papers it carried no signal at all: papers scoring 8 or more were his must-reads exactly as often as papers scoring 5 or less, both at the pool's base rate. Every abstract claims novelty, so the axis measures the claiming rather than the work. Score it honestly and do not let it influence the other four.

A strong claim with thin evidence is a worse read than a modest claim that holds. Score each axis on its own; do not let a high one pull up a low one.

Relevance Scoring

• 9-10: directly centered on the target topics; highest when the core contribution is clearly within them and the paper is about how a model is BUILT or TRAINED.
• 7-8: substantially related, but partly peripheral or focused on a narrower aspect.
• 5-6: touches the target topics, but the main contribution is elsewhere.
• 3-4: largely outside the target topics, often application-focused or domain-specific.
• 1-2: unrelated.

Important: Daily buzz, a frontier lab's name, or a large headline number is not enough for a high Relevance score. A model release scores high only when the report explains an architecture or training decision; a release that only reports results is hotspot material, not this feed.

Work whose contribution is "the same model, faster" -- kernels, communication schedules, overlap, caching, serving -- caps at Relevance 5 even when it is excellent and even when it is about MoE. Making a known design run faster is a different job from changing the design.

That cap is about SPEED, not about size. Compression that is lossless, or that changes what can be trained or held in memory at all rather than how quickly it runs, is not capped: it changes what is possible, which is the thing this feed is for.

Analysis of how a trained model's computation is actually organised -- what a circuit computes, what drives expert selection, how representations reorganise over training -- IS in scope and scores like any other work on mechanism. Only interpretability that stops at describing features, with nothing said about the mechanism that produced them, drops out of the feed.

Novelty Scoring

Novelty means a change to the design space, not a change to a number. Score against this ladder:

• 9-10: removes or replaces a component the whole field inherits without thinking (normalization, weight decay, the tokenizer, positional encoding, left-to-right decoding, the standard optimizer, a numerical format), or decouples two quantities everyone conflates -- AND states which end is held fixed while the other moves. The claim is unconditional: it does not require a particular scale, budget regime, or extra stage. An ANALYSIS paper reaches this band when it settles a mechanism-level question with a criterion that could have come out the other way.
• 7-8: a substantial new mechanism, or a decoupling whose gain is real but CONDITIONAL (holds above some batch size, in one budget band, or with an added training phase). A conditional win is a new knob, not a removed one, and belongs here rather than above.
• 5-6: meaningful but incremental extension or refinement of an existing primitive; a tuned variant; a well-executed combination of known parts.
• 3-4: minor, narrow, or mostly engineering or domain-specific improvement; a survey or overview, however thorough.
• 1-2: little originality; mainly standard application of existing methods.

Score the claim as the paper states it here. Whether the paper supports that claim is Evidence, and it is scored separately -- do not discount Novelty for weak experiments, and do not raise it because the framing is confident. Phrases like "we remove", "without X", "holding Y fixed" are what the paper SAYS; they earn a high Novelty only if the thing named really is a component the field inherits by default, not a component this paper introduced two sentences earlier.

Evidence Scoring

Does the demonstration reach as far as the claim?

• 9-10: shown at the scale and breadth the claim asserts -- language-model pretraining at billion-parameter or hundred-billion-token scale, or across several model families, sizes, or domains -- with ablations that isolate the named mechanism and could have failed.
• 7-8: one credible setting that matches the claim's stated scope, with the baselines a skeptic would ask for.
• 5-6: a single small setting, or a claim stated more broadly than the demonstration reaches.
• 3-4: the claim is about transformers or language models in general, but the demonstration lives in one narrow domain or one small benchmark -- image classification alone, a single toy task, one dataset; or the comparisons a reader needs in order to believe it are missing.
• 1-2: the central claim is asserted, illustrated, or supported only by plots that could not have come out the other way.

A structural claim demonstrated only outside the setting it claims is capped at 4, however striking the claim. "We removed a component everyone uses" shown only on small vision models is a result about small vision models.

When the abstract names no scale, no dataset, and no baseline at all, score exactly 5. Do not infer rigor from confident writing. Unstated is not the same as strong, and two thirds of abstracts say nothing here: guessing on those was measured to make this axis worse.

Adjustments: subtract 1 when no code is released and the procedure is not reproducible from the paper alone; subtract 1 when the method's cost grows in the number of components it adds (one loss per pair of experts, one module per domain) and the paper does not account for that growth; add 1 when the paper states its own limitation precisely enough that a reader could design the experiment that breaks it.

Load Scoring

What does it cost to get the usable result out? This is about the reader's effort, not quality.

• 9-10: the result cannot be taken without following the derivation -- a new theoretical framework, unfamiliar mathematical machinery, or a proof that IS the contribution.
• 7-8: substantial theory or an involved formalism, but the operational result is stated plainly somewhere.
• 4-6: ordinary methods paper; the recipe is legible from the paper's own description.
• 1-3: the takeaway is a single decision or number a reader can act on immediately.

A high Load is not a criticism. It only says the paper is a project rather than a read.

Proximity Scoring

How close is this to the Active Lines stated below? This axis is about the reader, not the paper, and a paper can be excellent and distant at the same time.

• 9-10: squarely on a centre line -- the paper's core contribution is the thing the reader is working on, and a result here changes what they would do next.
• 7-8: on a centre line but from a direction they are not working from, or on an adjacent line where the result carries over directly.
• 5-6: adjacent: same stack, different layer; they would want to know it happened.
• 3-4: far: recognisable as the same field, but nothing here reaches their work.
• 1-2: another area entirely.

Judge distance from the reader's stated centre, NOT from whatever is currently prominent in the field. A paper everyone is discussing is not thereby close.

Topic Registry

Use exactly one PRIMARY_TOPIC_ID chosen from the stable topic IDs below. - frontier_models: Frontier Model Releases and Technical Reports - Frontier model and technical reports that disclose an architecture or training decision: layer and attention design, normalization and residual choices, hybrid stacks, sparsity layout, tokenizer and data mixture, optimizer and schedule, precision, and the stability problems that had to be solved. - architecture_training: Architecture and Training Dynamics - Architectural and optimisation mechanisms, and the training dynamics that explain them: attention and normalization design, positional schemes, state-space and recurrent stacks, tokenizer-free and learned-chunking models, non-autoregressive and discrete-diffusion generation, optimizers and parameterisations including hyperparameter transfer across scale, and work that removes a standard component and shows the model still trains. - training_systems: Training Algorithms That Change What Is Possible - Distributed training algorithms that change what can be trained rather than how fast it runs: asynchronous, low-communication and decentralised optimisation, parallelism schemes with a new invariant, low-precision and 1-bit training when the claim is stability, and scaling laws including data-constrained regimes and critical batch size. - moe_training: MoE Where It Changes the Design Space - Mixture-of-Experts work that opens or closes a design axis: differentiable and stable routing, the training/inference router gap, expert collapse, granularity and layout as a new axis, dense-to-MoE conversion, and MoE scaling laws that fix one quantity and vary another. MoE systems and inference work is out. - efficiency_scaling: Efficiency, Compression, and Large-Scale Training - Compression, sparsity, quantization, pruning, low-rank and memory or cache efficiency whose mechanism is new and whose gain is unconditional.

Papers

[PAPER LIST HERE]

Instructions

Respond in JSONL. Output exactly one JSON object per paper, one per line:

{"ARXIVID":"...","COMMENT":"...","RELEVANCE":0,"NOVELTY":0,"EVIDENCE":0,"LOAD":0,"PROXIMITY":0,"PRIMARY_TOPIC_ID":"...","MATCHED_TOPIC_IDS":[],"TOPIC_MATCH_COMMENT":"...","HOTSPOT_PAPER_TAGS":[],"HOTSPOT_PAPER_COMMENT":"..."}

Rules: - ARXIVID: the arXiv ID. - COMMENT: identify the single strongest matching criterion. Be brief and specific. Do not rely on generic phrases like "language modeling" or "advancement". Do not mention non-matching criteria. - RELEVANCE: integer from 1 to 10. - NOVELTY: integer from 1 to 10, scoring the claim as stated. - EVIDENCE: integer from 1 to 10, scoring whether the demonstration reaches as far as the claim. - LOAD: integer from 1 to 10, scoring what it costs the reader to extract the usable result. - PROXIMITY: integer from 1 to 10, scoring distance from the stated Active Lines. - PRIMARY_TOPIC_ID: exactly one stable topic ID from the allowed topic registry. - MATCHED_TOPIC_IDS: zero or more stable topic IDs from the same allowed set. Include PRIMARY_TOPIC_ID when there are multiple matches. - TOPIC_MATCH_COMMENT: briefly explain why the primary topic is the best fit. - HOTSPOT_PAPER_TAGS: zero or more tags from this exact set only: daily_hot, new_frontier. - HOTSPOT_PAPER_COMMENT: briefly explain why the paper belongs in the daily hotspot paper feed when HOTSPOT_PAPER_TAGS is non-empty; otherwise use an empty string. - Use HOTSPOT_PAPER_TAGS sparingly. Most papers should return []. - daily_hot means the paper feels broadly important to the day and belongs in the daily hotspot paper section even if it is not part of the personalized foundational reading list. - new_frontier means the paper appears to open a genuinely new direction, paradigm, or field, even if the work is still early. - Do not output markdown, code fences, or any extra text.