Personalized Daily ArXiv Papers 2026-04-30

_{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 (6)

1. Associative-State Universal Transformers: Sparse Retrieval Meets Structured Recurrence Authors: Liu Xiao

2. Unified 4D World Action Modeling from Video Priors with Asynchronous Denoising Authors: Jun Guo, Qiwei Li, Peiyan Li, Zilong Chen, Nan Sun, Yifei Su, Heyun Wang, Yuan Zhang, Xinghang Li, Huaping Liu

3. Hyper Input Convex Neural Networks for Shape Constrained Learning and Optimal Transport Authors: Shayan Hundrieser, Insung Kong, Johannes Schmidt-Hieber

4. Lyapunov-Guided Self-Alignment: Test-Time Adaptation for Offline Safe Reinforcement Learning Authors: Seungyub Han, Hyungjin Kim, Jungwoo Lee

5. Momentum-Conserving Graph Neural Networks for Deformable Objects Authors: Jiahong Wang, Logan Numerow, Stelian Coros, Christian Theobalt, Vahid Babaei, Bernhard Thomaszewski

6. Uncertainty-Aware Predictive Safety Filters for Probabilistic Neural Network Dynamics Authors: Bernd Frauenknecht, Lukas Kesper, Daniel Mayfrank, Henrik Hose, Sebastian Trimpe

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

1. CoQuant: Joint Weight-Activation Subspace Projection for Mixed-Precision LLMs Authors: Zhe Ding, Su Pan, Duowei Pan

2. AMMA: A Multi-Chiplet Memory-Centric Architecture for Low-Latency 1M Context Attention Serving Authors: Zhongkai Yu, Haotian Ye, Chenyang Zhou, Ohm Rishabh Venkatachalam, Zaifeng Pan, Zhengding Hu, Junsung Kim, Won Woo Ro, Po-An Tsai, Shuyi Pei, Yangwook Kang, Yufei Ding

Architecture and Training Dynamics (6)

1. Associative-State Universal Transformers: Sparse Retrieval Meets Structured Recurrence

ArXiv ID: 2604.25930

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Liu Xiao

Abstract: We study whether a structured recurrent state can serve as a compact associative backbone for language modeling while still supporting exact retrieval. We introduce UniMatrix, a Universal Transformer style family that reuses a shared recurrent block across depth and augments it with hybrid state updates, a ROSA-style residual path, and token-conditioned embedding modulation. We evaluate these models on byte-level WikiText-2, synthetic associative recall, throughput profiling on Apple MPS, and a corrected benchmark for triple-token interactions. At small scale, UniMatrix-Core and UniMatrix-ROSA slightly outperform a parameter-matched Transformer on WikiText-2 while using many fewer parameters, reaching 5.084 and 5.083 bits-per-byte versus 5.124. The main negative result is equally important: on associative recall, the original UniMatrix family remains near chance while the Transformer reaches 25.4 percent, showing that compressed recurrent state alone is not enough for exact lookup. A retrieval-oriented follow-up, UniMatrix-Assoc, helps only marginally. By contrast, UniMatrix-SparsePointer, which adds sparse slot routing and direct pointer-logit fusion, reaches 75.6 percent on the original pilot recipe and 99.2 percent on a no-dropout follow-up while using 53.8 percent fewer parameters than the Transformer baseline. Ablations show that the gain comes from sufficient slot capacity and exact pointer-level output routing. Overall, structured recurrent state is promising and parameter-efficient, but strong long-range behavior still requires explicit sparse retrieval and better kernels.

Comment: Tests whether shared recurrent state can support exact retrieval, isolating the contribution of sparse pointer routing.

Topic Match: A recurrent language-model architecture with parameter-cost comparisons and informative retrieval ablations, demonstrated at small scale.

Relevance: 8 Novelty: 6

2. Unified 4D World Action Modeling from Video Priors with Asynchronous Denoising

ArXiv ID: 2604.26694

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Jun Guo, Qiwei Li, Peiyan Li, Zilong Chen, Nan Sun, Yifei Su, Heyun Wang, Yuan Zhang, Xinghang Li, Huaping Liu

Abstract: We propose X-WAM, a Unified 4D World Model that unifies real-time robotic action execution and high-fidelity 4D world synthesis (video + 3D reconstruction) in a single framework, addressing the critical limitations of prior unified world models (e.g., UWM) that only model 2D pixel-space and fail to balance action efficiency and world modeling quality. To leverage the strong visual priors of pretrained video diffusion models, X-WAM imagines the future world by predicting multi-view RGB-D videos, and obtains spatial information efficiently through a lightweight structural adaptation: replicating the final few blocks of the pretrained Diffusion Transformer into a dedicated depth prediction branch for the reconstruction of future spatial information. Moreover, we propose Asynchronous Noise Sampling (ANS) to jointly optimize generation quality and action decoding efficiency. ANS applies a specialized asynchronous denoising schedule during inference, which rapidly decodes actions with fewer steps to enable efficient real-time execution, while dedicating the full sequence of steps to generate high-fidelity video. Rather than entirely decoupling the timesteps during training, ANS samples from their joint distribution to align with the inference distribution. Pretrained on over 5,800 hours of robotic data, X-WAM achieves 79.2% and 90.7% average success rate on RoboCasa and RoboTwin 2.0 benchmarks, while producing high-fidelity 4D reconstruction and generation surpassing existing methods in both visual and geometric metrics.

Comment: Joint noise sampling supports different denoising depths for action execution and world generation.

Topic Match: The architectural and training changes apply to robotic video and action models, outside the language-model scope.

Relevance: 1 Novelty: 7

3. Hyper Input Convex Neural Networks for Shape Constrained Learning and Optimal Transport

ArXiv ID: 2604.26942

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Shayan Hundrieser, Insung Kong, Johannes Schmidt-Hieber

Abstract: We introduce Hyper Input Convex Neural Networks (HyCNNs), a novel neural network architecture designed for learning convex functions. HyCNNs combine the principles of Maxout networks with input convex neural networks (ICNNs) to create a neural network that is always convex in the input, theoretically capable of leveraging depth, and performs reliable when trained at scale compared to ICNNs. Concretely, we prove that HyCNNs require exponentially fewer parameters than ICNNs to approximate quadratic functions up to a given precision. Throughout a series of synthetic experiments, we demonstrate that HyCNNs outperform existing ICNNs and MLPs in terms of predictive performance for convex regression and interpolation tasks. We further apply HyCNNs to learn high-dimensional optimal transport maps for synthetic examples and for single-cell RNA sequencing data, where they oftentimes outperform ICNN-based neural optimal transport methods and other baselines across a wide range of settings.

Comment: A depth-capable convex architecture reduces the parameters needed to approximate quadratic functions exponentially relative to ICNNs.

Topic Match: The architectural result concerns convex regression and optimal transport, outside language-model training.

Relevance: 1 Novelty: 7

4. Lyapunov-Guided Self-Alignment: Test-Time Adaptation for Offline Safe Reinforcement Learning

ArXiv ID: 2604.26516

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Seungyub Han, Hyungjin Kim, Jungwoo Lee

Abstract: Offline reinforcement learning (RL) agents often fail when deployed, as the gap between training datasets and real environments leads to unsafe behavior. To address this, we present SAS (Self-Alignment for Safety), a transformer-based framework that enables test-time adaptation in offline safe RL without retraining. In SAS, the main mechanism is self-alignment: at test time, the pretrained agent generates several imagined trajectories and selects those satisfying the Lyapunov condition. These feasible segments are then recycled as in-context prompts, allowing the agent to realign its behavior toward safety while avoiding parameter updates. In effect, SAS turns Lyapunov-guided imagination into control-invariant prompts, and its transformer architecture admits a hierarchical RL interpretation where prompting functions as Bayesian inference over latent skills. Across Safety Gymnasium and MuJoCo benchmarks, SAS consistently reduces cost and failure while maintaining or improving return.

Comment: Lyapunov-filtered imagined trajectories become prompts for deployment-time policy adaptation.

Topic Match: The Transformer is an offline control policy; the contribution concerns safe reinforcement learning rather than language-model training.

Relevance: 1 Novelty: 6

5. Momentum-Conserving Graph Neural Networks for Deformable Objects

ArXiv ID: 2604.26097

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Jiahong Wang, Logan Numerow, Stelian Coros, Christian Theobalt, Vahid Babaei, Bernhard Thomaszewski

Abstract: Graph neural networks (GNNs) have emerged as a versatile and efficient option for modeling the dynamic behavior of deformable materials. While GNNs generalize readily to arbitrary shapes, mesh topologies, and material parameters, existing architectures struggle to correctly predict the temporal evolution of key physical quantities such as linear and angular momentum. In this work, we propose MomentumGNN -- a novel architecture designed to accurately track momentum by construction. Unlike existing GNNs that output unconstrained nodal accelerations, our model predicts per-edge stretching and bending impulses which guarantee the preservation of linear and angular momentum. We train our network in an unsupervised fashion using a physics-based loss, and we show that our method outperforms baselines in a number of common scenarios where momentum plays a pivotal role.

Comment: Predicting edge impulses enforces linear and angular momentum conservation by construction.

Topic Match: Architectural constraints are the nearest category, but the trained networks are physical-simulation GNNs.

Relevance: 1 Novelty: 7

6. Uncertainty-Aware Predictive Safety Filters for Probabilistic Neural Network Dynamics

ArXiv ID: 2604.26836

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Bernd Frauenknecht, Lukas Kesper, Daniel Mayfrank, Henrik Hose, Sebastian Trimpe

Abstract: Predictive safety filters (PSFs) leverage model predictive control to enforce constraint satisfaction during deep reinforcement learning (RL) exploration, yet their reliance on first-principles models or Gaussian processes limits scalability and broader applicability. Meanwhile, model-based RL (MBRL) methods routinely employ probabilistic ensemble (PE) neural networks to capture complex, high-dimensional dynamics from data with minimal prior knowledge. However, existing attempts to integrate PEs into PSFs lack rigorous uncertainty quantification. We introduce the Uncertainty-Aware Predictive Safety Filter (UPSi), a PSF that provides rigorous safety predictions using PE dynamics models by formulating future outcomes as reachable sets. UPSi introduces an explicit certainty constraint that prevents model exploitation and integrates seamlessly into common MBRL frameworks. We evaluate UPSi within Dyna-style MBRL on standard safe RL benchmarks and report substantial improvements in exploration safety over prior neural network PSFs while maintaining performance on par with standard MBRL. UPSi bridges the gap between the scalability and generality of modern MBRL and the safety guarantees of predictive safety filters.

Comment: Reachable-set predictions and an explicit certainty constraint prevent exploitation of learned dynamics.

Topic Match: The method constrains neural dynamics models for safe control, outside the language-model training scope.

Relevance: 1 Novelty: 6

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

1. CoQuant: Joint Weight-Activation Subspace Projection for Mixed-Precision LLMs

ArXiv ID: 2604.26378

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

Authors: Zhe Ding, Su Pan, Duowei Pan

Abstract: Post-training quantization (PTQ) has become an important technique for reducing the inference cost of Large Language Models (LLMs). While recent mixed-precision methods improve ultra-low bit quantization by preserving critical subspaces in high precision, they typically construct these subspaces relying solely on activation statistics. This ignores the fundamental nature of linear operations, where the output perturbation is jointly driven by both activation and weight quantization noise. In this paper, we propose CoQuant, a joint weight-activation subspace projection method. By theoretically modeling the expected output error, CoQuant formulates a closed-form weighted PCA solution that balances activation and weight covariances to select the optimal high-precision subspace. Extensive experiments on Llama-3.2 and Qwen2.5 models show that CoQuant consistently outperforms strong PTQ baselines in both WikiText perplexity and zero-shot common-sense reasoning accuracy. These results demonstrate that joint weight-activation subspace modeling provides a principled and effective direction for low-bit LLM quantization. The source code is available at https://github.com/Zachary5895/CoQuant.

Comment: Joint weight-activation covariance determines which quantization subspace retains high precision.

Topic Match: Compression is the closest category, but the core subject is explicitly excluded post-training quantization.

Relevance: 3 Novelty: 6

2. AMMA: A Multi-Chiplet Memory-Centric Architecture for Low-Latency 1M Context Attention Serving

ArXiv ID: 2604.26103

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

Authors: Zhongkai Yu, Haotian Ye, Chenyang Zhou, Ohm Rishabh Venkatachalam, Zaifeng Pan, Zhengding Hu, Junsung Kim, Won Woo Ro, Po-An Tsai, Shuyi Pei, Yangwook Kang, Yufei Ding

Abstract: All current LLM serving systems place the GPU at the center, from production-level attention-FFN disaggregation to NVIDIA's Rubin GPU-LPU heterogeneous platform. Even academic PIM/PNM proposals still treat the GPU as the central hub for cross-device communication. Yet the GPU's compute-rich architecture is fundamentally mismatched with the memory-bound nature of decode-phase attention, inflating serving latency while wasting power and die area on idle compute units. The problem is compounded as reasoning and agentic workloads push context lengths toward one million tokens, making attention latency the primary user-facing bottleneck. To address these inefficiencies, we present AMMA, a multi-chiplet, memory-centric architecture for low-latency long-context attention. AMMA replaces GPU compute dies with HBM-PNM cubes, roughly doubling the available memory bandwidth to better serve memory-bound attention workloads. To translate this bandwidth into proportional performance gains, we introduce (i) a logic-die microarchitecture that fully exploits per-cube internal bandwidth for decode attention under a minimal power and area budget, (ii) a two-level hybrid parallelism scheme, and (iii) a reordered collective flow that reduces intra-chip die-to-die communication overhead. We further conduct a design-space exploration over per-cube compute power and intra-chip D2D link bandwidth, providing actionable guidance for hardware designers. Evaluations show that AMMA achieves 15.5X lower attention latency and 6.9X lower energy consumption compared with the NVIDIA H100.

Comment: Memory-centric chiplets replace GPU compute dies for decode attention.

Topic Match: Memory efficiency is the nearest category; the contribution is serving hardware and attention latency reduction.

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.