Personalized Daily ArXiv Papers 2026-04-24

_{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:

Frontier Model Releases and Technical Reports (1)

1. Super Apriel: One Checkpoint, Many Speeds Authors: SLAM Labs, :, Oleksiy Ostapenko, Raymond Li, Torsten Scholak, Alireza Mousavi-Hosseini, Aman Tiwari, Denis Kocetkov, Joel Lamy Poirier, Kelechi Ogueji, Nanda H Krishna, Rafael Pardinas, Sathwik Tejaswi Madhusudhan, Shruthan Radhakrishna, Srinivas Sunkara, Valerie Becaert

Architecture and Training Dynamics (12)

1. Convergent Evolution: How Different Language Models Learn Similar Number Representations Authors: Deqing Fu, Tianyi Zhou, Mikhail Belkin, Vatsal Sharan, Robin Jia

2. Are LLM Uncertainty and Correctness Encoded by the Same Features? A Functional Dissociation via Sparse Autoencoders Authors: Het Patel, Tiejin Chen, Hua Wei, Evangelos E. Papalexakis, Jia Chen

3. Absorber LLM: Harnessing Causal Synchronization for Test-Time Training Authors: Zhixin Zhang, Shabo Zhang, Chengcan Wu, Zeming Wei, Meng Sun

4. An explicit operator explains end-to-end computation in the modern neural networks used for sequence and language modeling Authors: Anif N. Shikder, Ramit Dey, Sayantan Auddy, Luisa Liboni, Alexandra N. Busch, Arthur Powanwe, J\'an Min\'a\v{c}, Roberto C. Budzinski, Lyle E. Muller

5. Rethinking Intrinsic Dimension Estimation in Neural Representations Authors: Rickmer Schulte, David R\"ugamer

6. SGD at the Edge of Stability: The Stochastic Sharpness Gap Authors: Fangshuo Liao, Afroditi Kolomvaki, Anastasios Kyrillidis

7. From Noise to Intent: Anchoring Generative VLA Policies with Residual Bridges Authors: Yiming Zhong, Yaoyu He, Zemin Yang, Pengfei Tian, Yifan Huang, Qingqiu Huang, Xinge Zhu, Yuexin Ma

8. Occupancy Reward Shaping: Improving Credit Assignment for Offline Goal-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning Authors: Aravind Venugopal, Jiayu Chen, Xudong Wu, Chongyi Zheng, Benjamin Eysenbach, Jeff Schneider

9. Frequency-Forcing: From Scaling-as-Time to Soft Frequency Guidance Authors: Weitao Du

10. Geometric Layer-wise Approximation Rates for Deep Networks Authors: Shijun Zhang, Zuowei Shen, Yuesheng Xu

11. Distributional Value Estimation Without Target Networks for Robust Quality-Diversity Authors: Behrad Koohy, Jamie Bayne

12. EvoForest: A Novel Machine-Learning Paradigm via Open-Ended Evolution of Computational Graphs Authors: Kamer Ali Yuksel, Hassan Sawaf

MoE Where It Changes the Design Space (1)

1. On Bayesian Softmax-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Models Authors: Nicola Bariletto, Huy Nguyen, Nhat Ho, Alessandro Rinaldo

Efficiency, Compression, and Large-Scale Training (2)

1. Continuous Semantic Caching for Low-Cost LLM Serving Authors: Baran Atalar, Xutong Liu, Jinhang Zuo, Siwei Wang, Wei Chen, Carlee Joe-Wong

2. Improved large-scale graph learning through ridge spectral sparsification Authors: Daniele Calandriello, Ioannis Koutis, Alessandro Lazaric, Michal Valko

Frontier Model Releases and Technical Reports (1)

1. Super Apriel: One Checkpoint, Many Speeds

ArXiv ID: 2604.19877

Primary Topic: Frontier Model Releases and Technical Reports

Also Matches: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: SLAM Labs, :, Oleksiy Ostapenko, Raymond Li, Torsten Scholak, Alireza Mousavi-Hosseini, Aman Tiwari, Denis Kocetkov, Joel Lamy Poirier, Kelechi Ogueji, Nanda H Krishna, Rafael Pardinas, Sathwik Tejaswi Madhusudhan, Shruthan Radhakrishna, Srinivas Sunkara, Valerie Becaert

Abstract: We release Super Apriel, a 15B-parameter supernet in which every decoder layer provides four trained mixer choices -- Full Attention (FA), Sliding Window Attention (SWA), Kimi Delta Attention (KDA), and Gated DeltaNet (GDN). A placement selects one mixer per layer; placements can be switched between requests at serving time without reloading weights, enabling multiple speed presets from a single checkpoint. The shared checkpoint also enables speculative decoding without a separate draft model. The all-FA preset matches the Apriel 1.6 teacher on all reported benchmarks; recommended hybrid presets span $2.9\times$ to $10.7\times$ decode throughput at 96% to 77% quality retention, with throughput advantages that compound at longer context lengths. With four mixer types across 48 layers, the configuration space is vast. A surrogate that predicts placement quality from the per-layer mixer assignment makes the speed-quality landscape tractable and identifies the best tradeoffs at each speed level. We investigate whether the best configurations at each speed level can be identified early in training or only after convergence. Rankings stabilize quickly at 0.5B scale, but the most efficient configurations exhibit higher instability at 15B, cautioning against extrapolation from smaller models. Super Apriel is trained by stochastic distillation from a frozen Apriel 1.6 teacher, followed by supervised fine-tuning. We release the supernet weights, Fast-LLM training code, vLLM serving code, and a placement optimization toolkit.

Comment: Trains interchangeable attention and recurrent mixers within each layer and tests when placement rankings stabilize across scales.

Topic Match: The open 15B report discloses a supernet with four mixer choices per layer and shows why placement rankings from small models can mislead larger-model design.

Relevance: 9 Novelty: 7

Architecture and Training Dynamics (12)

1. Convergent Evolution: How Different Language Models Learn Similar Number Representations

ArXiv ID: 2604.20817

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Deqing Fu, Tianyi Zhou, Mikhail Belkin, Vatsal Sharan, Robin Jia

Abstract: Language models trained on natural text learn to represent numbers using periodic features with dominant periods at $T=2, 5, 10$. In this paper, we identify a two-tiered hierarchy of these features: while Transformers, Linear RNNs, LSTMs, and classical word embeddings trained in different ways all learn features that have period-$T$ spikes in the Fourier domain, only some learn geometrically separable features that can be used to linearly classify a number mod-$T$. To explain this incongruity, we prove that Fourier domain sparsity is necessary but not sufficient for mod-$T$ geometric separability. Empirically, we investigate when model training yields geometrically separable features, finding that the data, architecture, optimizer, and tokenizer all play key roles. In particular, we identify two different routes through which models can acquire geometrically separable features: they can learn them from complementary co-occurrence signals in general language data, including text-number co-occurrence and cross-number interaction, or from multi-token (but not single-token) addition problems. Overall, our results highlight the phenomenon of convergent evolution in feature learning: A diverse range of models learn similar features from different training signals.

Comment: Shows why Fourier-periodic number features need not be linearly usable and identifies training signals that make them separable.

Topic Match: Explains how data, tokenization, architecture, and optimization produce internal representations, with a falsifiable distinction between spectral periodicity and usable geometry.

Relevance: 9 Novelty: 9

2. Are LLM Uncertainty and Correctness Encoded by the Same Features? A Functional Dissociation via Sparse Autoencoders

ArXiv ID: 2604.19974

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Het Patel, Tiejin Chen, Hua Wei, Evangelos E. Papalexakis, Jia Chen

Abstract: Large language models can be uncertain yet correct, or confident yet wrong, raising the question of whether their output-level uncertainty and their actual correctness are driven by the same internal mechanisms or by distinct feature populations. We introduce a 2x2 framework that partitions model predictions along correctness and confidence axes, and uses sparse autoencoders to identify features associated with each dimension independently. Applying this to Llama-3.1-8B and Gemma-2-9B, we identify three feature populations that play fundamentally different functional roles. Pure uncertainty features are functionally essential: suppressing them severely degrades accuracy. Pure incorrectness features are functionally inert: despite showing statistically significant activation differences between correct and incorrect predictions, the majority produce near-zero change in accuracy when suppressed. Confounded features that encode both signals are detrimental to output quality, and targeted suppression of them yields a 1.1% accuracy improvement and a 75% entropy reduction, with effects transferring across the ARC-Challenge and RACE benchmarks. The feature categories are also informationally distinct: the activations of just 3 confounded features from a single mid-network layer predict model correctness (AUROC ~0.79), enabling selective abstention that raises accuracy from 62% to 81% at 53% coverage. The results demonstrate that uncertainty and correctness are distinct internal phenomena, with implications for interpretability and targeted inference-time intervention.

Comment: Uses feature suppression to distinguish causally important uncertainty features from accuracy-correlated but functionally inert features.

Topic Match: Internal feature analysis is closest to architecture_training, but the core output is an interpretability taxonomy and inference intervention without explaining how training produces these populations.

Relevance: 4 Novelty: 8

3. Absorber LLM: Harnessing Causal Synchronization for Test-Time Training

ArXiv ID: 2604.20915

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Zhixin Zhang, Shabo Zhang, Chengcan Wu, Zeming Wei, Meng Sun

Abstract: Transformers suffer from a high computational cost that grows with sequence length for self-attention, making inference in long streams prohibited by memory consumption. Constant-memory alternatives such as RNNs and SSMs compress history into states with fixed size and thus lose long-tail dependencies, while methods that memorize contexts into parameters, such as Test-Time Training (TTT), are prone to overfitting token-level projection and fail to preserve the causal effect of context in pretrained LLMs. We propose Absorber LLM, which formulates long-context retention as a self-supervised causal synchronization: after absorbing historical contexts into parameters, a contextless model should match the original model with full context on future generations. We optimize this objective by synchronizing internal behaviors of the updated model with the original one, ensuring context absorption and generalization. Experiments on long-context and streaming benchmarks show that Absorber LLM reduces inference memory and improves accuracy over prior parameter-as-memory baselines.

Comment: Optimizes context-absorbing parameter updates to reproduce a full-context model's future behavior.

Topic Match: Parameter-update objectives are the nearest training connection, but the core subject is long-context retention through test-time adaptation.

Relevance: 4 Novelty: 6

4. An explicit operator explains end-to-end computation in the modern neural networks used for sequence and language modeling

ArXiv ID: 2604.20595

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Anif N. Shikder, Ramit Dey, Sayantan Auddy, Luisa Liboni, Alexandra N. Busch, Arthur Powanwe, J\'an Min\'a\v{c}, Roberto C. Budzinski, Lyle E. Muller

Abstract: We establish a mathematical correspondence between state space models, a state-of-the-art architecture for capturing long-range dependencies in data, and an exactly solvable nonlinear oscillator network. As a specific example of this general correspondence, we analyze the diagonal linear time-invariant implementation of the Structured State Space Sequence model (S4). The correspondence embeds S4D, a specific implementation of S4, into a ring network topology, in which recent inputs are encoded, as waves of activity traveling over the one-dimensional spatial layout of the network. We then derive an exact operator expression for the full forward pass of S4D, yielding an analytical characterization of its complete input-output map. This expression reveals that the nonlinear decoder in the system induces interactions between these information-carrying waves that enable classifying real-world sequences. These results generalize across modern SSM architectures, and show that they admit an exact mathematical description with a clear physical interpretation. These insights enable a new level of interpretability for these systems in terms of nonlinear oscillator networks.

Comment: Derives an exact S4D input-output operator that exposes nonlinear interactions between waves encoding past inputs.

Topic Match: An explicit account of SSM computation is the nearest topic, but the abstract develops sequence-classification theory without establishing language-model training implications.

Relevance: 4 Novelty: 8

5. Rethinking Intrinsic Dimension Estimation in Neural Representations

ArXiv ID: 2604.20276

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Rickmer Schulte, David R\"ugamer

Abstract: The analysis of neural representation has become an integral part of research aiming to better understand the inner workings of neural networks. While there are many different approaches to investigate neural representations, an important line of research has focused on doing so through the lens of intrinsic dimensions (IDs). Although this perspective has provided valuable insights and stimulated substantial follow-up research, important limitations of this approach have remained largely unaddressed. In this paper, we highlight a crucial discrepancy between theory and practice of IDs in neural representations, theoretically and empirically showing that common ID estimators are, in fact, not tracking the true underlying ID of the representation. We contrast this negative result with an investigation of the underlying factors that may drive commonly reported ID-related results on neural representation in the literature. Building on these insights, we offer a new perspective on ID estimation in neural representations.

Comment: Shows that common intrinsic-dimension estimators can track factors other than the representation's true dimension.

Topic Match: Representation analysis is the closest topic, but this audits general estimators rather than a language-model benchmark or training mechanism.

Relevance: 4 Novelty: 8

6. SGD at the Edge of Stability: The Stochastic Sharpness Gap

ArXiv ID: 2604.21016

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Fangshuo Liao, Afroditi Kolomvaki, Anastasios Kyrillidis

Abstract: When training neural networks with full-batch gradient descent (GD) and step size $\eta$, the largest eigenvalue of the Hessian -- the sharpness $S(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ -- rises to $2/\eta$ and hovers there, a phenomenon termed the Edge of Stability (EoS). \citet{damian2023selfstab} showed that this behavior is explained by a self-stabilization mechanism driven by third-order structure of the loss, and that GD implicitly follows projected gradient descent (PGD) on the constraint $ S(\boldsymbol{\theta})\leq 2/\eta$. For mini-batch stochastic gradient descent (SGD), the sharpness stabilizes below $2/\eta$, with the gap widening as the batch size decreases; yet no theoretical explanation exists for this suppression. We introduce stochastic self-stabilization, extending the self-stabilization framework to SGD. Our key insight is that gradient noise injects variance into the oscillatory dynamics along the top Hessian eigenvector, strengthening the cubic sharpness-reducing force and shifting the equilibrium below $2/\eta$. Following the approach of \citet{damian2023selfstab}, we define stochastic predicted dynamics relative to a moving projected gradient descent trajectory and prove a stochastic coupling theorem that bounds the deviation of SGD from these predictions. We derive a closed-form equilibrium sharpness gap: $\Delta S = \eta \beta \sigma_{\boldsymbol{u}}^{2}/(4\alpha)$, where $\alpha$ is the progressive sharpening rate, $\beta$ is the self-stabilization strength, and $\sigma_{ \boldsymbol{u}}^{2}$ is the gradient noise variance projected onto the top eigenvector. This formula predicts that smaller batch sizes yield flatter solutions and recovers GD when the batch equals the full dataset.

Comment: Derives a gradient-noise-dependent sharpness gap below the full-batch edge-of-stability threshold.

Topic Match: Optimization dynamics are the closest topic, but the core subject is general stochastic-gradient analysis without a language-model training setting.

Relevance: 3 Novelty: 8

7. From Noise to Intent: Anchoring Generative VLA Policies with Residual Bridges

ArXiv ID: 2604.21391

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Yiming Zhong, Yaoyu He, Zemin Yang, Pengfei Tian, Yifan Huang, Qingqiu Huang, Xinge Zhu, Yuexin Ma

Abstract: Bridging high-level semantic understanding with low-level physical control remains a persistent challenge in embodied intelligence, stemming from the fundamental spatiotemporal scale mismatch between cognition and action. Existing generative VLA policies typically adopt a "Generation-from-Noise" paradigm, which disregards this disparity, leading to representation inefficiency and weak condition alignment during optimization. In this work, we propose ResVLA, an architecture that shifts the paradigm to "Refinement-from-Intent." Recognizing that robotic motion naturally decomposes into global intent and local dynamics, ResVLA utilizes spectral analysis to decouple control into a deterministic low-frequency anchor and a stochastic high-frequency residual. By anchoring the generative process on the predicted intent, our model focuses strictly on refining local dynamics via a residual diffusion bridge. Extensive simulation experiments show that ResVLA achieves competitive performance, strong robustness to language and robot embodiment perturbations, and faster convergence than standard generative baselines. It also demonstrates strong performance in real-world robot experiments.

Comment: Separates deterministic low-frequency intent from stochastic residual dynamics in a generative policy architecture.

Topic Match: Closest to architecture_training through its generative decomposition, but the trained model is a robotic action policy.

Relevance: 3 Novelty: 7

8. Occupancy Reward Shaping: Improving Credit Assignment for Offline Goal-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning

ArXiv ID: 2604.20627

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Aravind Venugopal, Jiayu Chen, Xudong Wu, Chongyi Zheng, Benjamin Eysenbach, Jeff Schneider

Abstract: The temporal lag between actions and their long-term consequences makes credit assignment a challenge when learning goal-directed behaviors from data. Generative world models capture the distribution of future states an agent may visit, indicating that they have captured temporal information. How can that temporal information be extracted to perform credit assignment? In this paper, we formalize how the temporal information stored in world models encodes the underlying geometry of the world. Leveraging optimal transport, we extract this geometry from a learned model of the occupancy measure into a reward function that captures goal-reaching information. Our resulting method, Occupancy Reward Shaping, largely mitigates the problem of credit assignment in sparse reward settings. ORS provably does not alter the optimal policy, yet empirically improves performance by 2.2x across 13 diverse long-horizon locomotion and manipulation tasks. Moreover, we demonstrate the effectiveness of ORS in the real world for controlling nuclear fusion on 3 Tokamak control tasks. Code: https://github.com/aravindvenu7/occupancy_reward_shaping; Website: https://aravindvenu7.github.io/website/ors/

Comment: Extracts goal-reaching rewards from occupancy geometry while preserving the optimal policy.

Topic Match: Training-objective design is the closest topic, but the contribution concerns credit assignment for control and reinforcement learning.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 7

9. Frequency-Forcing: From Scaling-as-Time to Soft Frequency Guidance

ArXiv ID: 2604.20902

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Weitao Du

Abstract: While standard flow-matching models transport noise to data uniformly, incorporating an explicit generation order - specifically, establishing coarse, low-frequency structure before fine detail - has proven highly effective for synthesizing natural images. Two recent works offer distinct paradigms for this. K-Flow imposes a hard frequency constraint by reinterpreting a frequency scaling variable as flow time, running the trajectory inside a transformed amplitude space. Latent Forcing provides a soft ordering mechanism by coupling the pixel flow with an auxiliary semantic latent flow via asynchronous time schedules, leaving the pixel interpolation path itself untouched. Viewed from the angle of improving pixel generation, we observe that forcing - guiding generation with an earlier-maturing auxiliary stream - offers a highly compatible route to scale-ordered generation without rewriting the core flow coordinate. Building on this, we propose Frequency-Forcing, which realizes K-Flow's frequency ordering through Latent Forcing's soft mechanism: a standard pixel flow is guided by an auxiliary low-frequency stream that matures earlier in time. Unlike Latent Forcing, whose scratchpad relies on a heavy pretrained encoder (e.g., DINO), our frequency scratchpad is derived from the data itself via a lightweight learnable wavelet packet transform. We term this a self-forcing signal, which avoids external dependencies while learning a basis better adapted to data statistics than the fixed bases used in hard frequency flows. On ImageNet-256, Frequency-Forcing consistently improves FID over strong pixel- and latent-space baselines, and naturally composes with a semantic stream to yield further gains. This illustrates that forcing-based scale ordering is a versatile, path-preserving alternative to hard frequency flows.

Comment: Replaces a pretrained semantic guidance encoder with an earlier-maturing frequency stream learned directly from the data.

Topic Match: Auxiliary conditioning during generative training is the closest topic, but the contribution concerns image flow models.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 6

10. Geometric Layer-wise Approximation Rates for Deep Networks

ArXiv ID: 2604.20219

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Shijun Zhang, Zuowei Shen, Yuesheng Xu

Abstract: Depth is widely viewed as a central contributor to the success of deep neural networks, whereas standard neural network approximation theory typically provides guarantees only for the final output and leaves the role of intermediate layers largely unclear. We address this gap by developing a quantitative framework in which depth admits a precise scale-dependent interpretation. Specifically, we design a single shared mixed-activation architecture of fixed width $2dN+d+2$ and any prescribed finite depth such that each intermediate readout $\Phi_\ell$ is itself an approximant to the target function $f$. For $f\in L^p([0,1]^d)$ with $p\in [1,\infty)$, the approximation error of $\Phi_\ell$ is controlled by $(2d+1)$ times the $L^p$ modulus of continuity at the geometric scale $N^{-\ell}$ for all $\ell$. The estimate reduces to the geometric rate $(2d+1)N^{-\ell}$ if $f$ is $1$-Lipschitz. Our network design is inspired by multigrade deep learning, where depth serves as a progressive refinement mechanism: each new correction targets residual information at a finer scale while the earlier correction terms remain part of the later readouts, yielding a nested architecture that supports adaptive refinement without redesigning the preceding network.

Comment: Makes depth a progressive refinement mechanism with geometric approximation guarantees at every intermediate readout.

Topic Match: Closest to architecture_training through depth and residual refinement, but the contribution concerns generic function approximation.

Relevance: 3 Novelty: 7

11. Distributional Value Estimation Without Target Networks for Robust Quality-Diversity

ArXiv ID: 2604.20381

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Behrad Koohy, Jamie Bayne

Abstract: Quality-Diversity (QD) algorithms excel at discovering diverse repertoires of skills, but are hindered by poor sample efficiency and often require tens of millions of environment steps to solve complex locomotion tasks. Recent advances in Reinforcement Learning (RL) have shown that high Update-to-Data (UTD) ratios accelerate Actor-Critic learning. While effective, standard high-UTD algorithms typically utilise target networks to stabilise training. This requirement introduces a significant computational bottleneck, rendering them impractical for resource-intensive Quality-Diversity (QD) tasks where sample efficiency and rapid population adaptation are critical. In this paper, we introduce QDHUAC, a sample-efficient, target-free and distributional QD-RL algorithm that provides dense and low-variance gradient signals, which enables high-UTD training for Dominated Novelty Search whilst requiring an order of magnitude fewer environment steps. We demonstrate that our method enables stable training at high UTD ratios, achieving competitive coverage and fitness on high-dimensional Brax environments with an order of magnitude fewer samples than baselines. Our results suggest that combining target-free distributional critics with dominance-based selection is a key enabler for the next generation of sample-efficient evolutionary RL algorithms.

Comment: Removes target networks from distributional critics to support quality-diversity training at high update-to-data ratios.

Topic Match: Removing a training component is the closest architectural connection, but the trained systems are reinforcement-learning controllers.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 7

12. EvoForest: A Novel Machine-Learning Paradigm via Open-Ended Evolution of Computational Graphs

ArXiv ID: 2604.19761

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Kamer Ali Yuksel, Hassan Sawaf

Abstract: Modern machine learning is still largely organized around a single recipe: choose a parameterized model family and optimize its weights. Although highly successful, this paradigm is too narrow for many structured prediction problems, where the main bottleneck is not parameter fitting but discovering what should be computed from the data. Success often depends on identifying the right transformations, statistics, invariances, interaction structures, temporal summaries, gates, or nonlinear compositions, especially when objectives are non-differentiable, evaluation is cross-validation-based, interpretability matters, or continual adaptation is required. We present EvoForest, a hybrid neuro-symbolic system for end-to-end open-ended evolution of computation. Rather than merely generating features, EvoForest jointly evolves reusable computational structure, callable function families, and trainable low-dimensional continuous components inside a shared directed acyclic graph. Intermediate nodes store alternative implementations, callable nodes encode reusable transformation families such as projections, gates, and activations, output nodes define candidate predictive computations, and persistent global parameters can be refined by gradient descent. For each graph configuration, EvoForest evaluates the discovered computation and uses a lightweight Ridge-based readout to score the resulting representation against a non-differentiable cross-validation target. The evaluator also produces structured feedback that guides future LLM-driven mutations. In the 2025 ADIA Lab Structural Break Challenge, EvoForest reached 94.13% ROC-AUC after 600 evolution steps, exceeding the publicly reported winning score of 90.14% under the same evaluation protocol.

Comment: Evolves reusable computational graphs and trainable subcomponents using feedback from a cross-validation objective.

Topic Match: Computation-graph search is nearest to architecture_training, but the demonstrated task is structural-break prediction rather than language-model construction.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 6

MoE Where It Changes the Design Space (1)

1. On Bayesian Softmax-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Models

ArXiv ID: 2604.20551

Primary Topic: MoE Where It Changes the Design Space

Authors: Nicola Bariletto, Huy Nguyen, Nhat Ho, Alessandro Rinaldo

Abstract: Mixture-of-experts models provide a flexible framework for learning complex probabilistic input-output relationships by combining multiple expert models through an input-dependent gating mechanism. These models have become increasingly prominent in modern machine learning, yet their theoretical properties in the Bayesian framework remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we study Bayesian mixture-of-experts models, focusing on the ubiquitous softmax-based gating mechanism. Specifically, we investigate the asymptotic behavior of the posterior distribution for three fundamental statistical tasks: density estimation, parameter estimation, and model selection. First, we establish posterior contraction rates for density estimation, both in the regimes with a fixed, known number of experts and with a random learnable number of experts. We then analyze parameter estimation and derive convergence guarantees based on tailored Voronoi-type losses, which account for the complex identifiability structure of mixture-of-experts models. Finally, we propose and analyze two complementary strategies for selecting the number of experts. Taken together, these results provide one of the first systematic theoretical analyses of Bayesian mixture-of-experts models with softmax gating, and yield several theory-grounded insights for practical model design.

Comment: Derives posterior-contraction, parameter-estimation, and expert-count guarantees for Bayesian models with softmax gating.

Topic Match: Softmax gating makes moe_training the nearest label, but this is statistical mixture estimation rather than sparse language-model training.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 7

Efficiency, Compression, and Large-Scale Training (2)

1. Continuous Semantic Caching for Low-Cost LLM Serving

ArXiv ID: 2604.20021

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

Authors: Baran Atalar, Xutong Liu, Jinhang Zuo, Siwei Wang, Wei Chen, Carlee Joe-Wong

Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly popular, caching responses so that they can be reused by users with semantically similar queries has become a vital strategy for reducing inference costs and latency. Existing caching frameworks have proposed to decide which query responses to cache by assuming a finite, known universe of discrete queries and learning their serving costs and arrival probabilities. As LLMs' pool of users and queries expands, however, such an assumption becomes increasingly untenable: real-world LLM queries reside in an infinite, continuous embedding space. In this paper, we establish the first rigorous theoretical framework for semantic LLM response caching in continuous query space under uncertainty. To bridge the gap between discrete optimization and continuous representation spaces, we introduce dynamic $\epsilon$-net discretization coupled with Kernel Ridge Regression. This design enables the system to formally quantify estimation uncertainty and generalize partial feedback on LLM query costs across continuous semantic query neighborhoods. We develop both offline learning and online adaptive algorithms optimized to reduce switching costs incurred by changing the cached responses. We prove that our online algorithm achieves a sublinear regret bound against an optimal continuous oracle, which reduces to existing bounds for discrete query models. Extensive empirical evaluations demonstrate that our framework approximates the continuous optimal cache well while also reducing computational and switching overhead compared to existing methods.

Comment: Extends response-cache optimization to continuous query spaces with uncertainty estimates and a sublinear regret guarantee.

Topic Match: Caching is nearest to efficiency_scaling, but the contribution reduces serving costs rather than changing what can be trained.

Relevance: 3 Novelty: 7

2. Improved large-scale graph learning through ridge spectral sparsification

ArXiv ID: 2604.20078

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

Authors: Daniele Calandriello, Ioannis Koutis, Alessandro Lazaric, Michal Valko

Abstract: Graph-based techniques and spectral graph theory have enriched the field of machine learning with a variety of critical advances. A central object in the analysis is the graph Laplacian L, which encodes the structure of the graph. We consider the problem of learning over this Laplacian in a distributed streaming setting, where new edges of the graph are observed in real time by a network of workers. In this setting, it is hard to learn quickly or approximately while keeping a distributed representation of L. To address this challenge, we present a novel algorithm, GSQUEAK, which efficiently sparsifies the Laplacian by maintaining a small subset of effective resistances. We show that our algorithm produces sparsifiers with strong spectral approximation guarantees, all while processing edges in a single pass and in a distributed fashion.

Comment: Maintains spectrally faithful graph sparsifiers during distributed, single-pass edge processing.

Topic Match: Closest to efficiency_scaling through spectral compression, but the compressed object is a graph Laplacian.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 6

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.