Personalized Daily ArXiv Papers 2026-05-16

_{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 (14)

1. TFGN: Task-Free, Replay-Free Continual Pre-Training Without Catastrophic Forgetting at LLM Scale Authors: Anurup Ganguli

2. Conditional Attribute Estimation with Autoregressive Sequence Models Authors: Erica Stutz, Giacomo Marino, Daniella Meeker, Qiao Liu, Andrew J. Loza

3. Hidden State Poisoning Attacks against Mamba-based Language Models Authors: Alexandre Le Mercier, Chris Develder, Thomas Demeester

4. SliceGraph: Mapping Process Isomers in Multi-Run Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Authors: Kang Chen, Junjie Nian, Yixin Cao, Yugang Jiang

5. Thinking Ahead: Prospection-Guided Retrieval of Memory with Language Models Authors: Harshita Chopra, Krishna Kant Chintalapudi, Suman Nath, Ryen W. White, Chirag Shah

6. MeMo: Memory as a Model Authors: Ryan Wei Heng Quek, Sanghyuk Lee, Alfred Wei Lun Leong, Arun Verma, Alok Prakash, Nancy F. Chen, Bryan Kian Hsiang Low, Daniela Rus, Armando Solar-Lezama

7. EvolveMem:Self-Evolving Memory Architecture via AutoResearch for LLM Agents Authors: Jiaqi Liu, Xinyu Ye, Peng Xia, Zeyu Zheng, Cihang Xie, Mingyu Ding, Huaxiu Yao

8. ASH: Agents that Self-Hone via Embodied Learning Authors: Benjamin Schneider, Xavier Schneider, Victor Zhong, Sun Sun

9. Few Channels Draw The Whole Picture: Revealing Massive Activations in Diffusion Transformers Authors: Evelyn Turri, Davide Bucciarelli, Sara Sarto, Lorenzo Baraldi, Marcella Cornia

10. Grounded Continuation: A Linear-Time Runtime Verifier for LLM Conversations Authors: Qisong He, Yi Dong, Xiaowei Huang

11. Non-linear Interventions on Large Language Models Authors: Sangwoo Kim

12. Agentifying Patient Dynamics within LLMs through Interacting with Clinical World Model Authors: Minghao Wu, Yuting Yan, Zhenyang Cai, Ke Ji, Chuangsen Fang, Ziying Sheng, Xidong Wang, Rongsheng Wang, Hejia Zhang, Shuang Li, Benyou Wang, Hongyuan Zha

13. Policy Optimization in Hybrid Discrete-Continuous Action Spaces via Mixed Gradients Authors: Matias Alvo, Daniel Russo, Yash Kanoria

14. Fast Rates for Inverse Reinforcement Learning Authors: Andreas Schlaginhaufen, Maryam Kamgarpour

Efficiency, Compression, and Large-Scale Training (1)

1. Uncovering the Representation Geometry of Minimal Cores in Overcomplete Reasoning Traces Authors: Sanjoy Chowdhury, Dinesh Manocha

Architecture and Training Dynamics (14)

1. TFGN: Task-Free, Replay-Free Continual Pre-Training Without Catastrophic Forgetting at LLM Scale

ArXiv ID: 2605.15053

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Anurup Ganguli

Abstract: Continually pre-training a large language model on heterogeneous text domains, without replay or task labels, has remained an unsolved architectural problem at LLM scale. Existing methods rely on replay buffers, task identifiers, regularization penalties that scale poorly, or sentence-classification-scale evaluation. We introduce TFGN, an architectural overlay for transformer language models that produces input-conditioned, parameter-efficient updates while leaving the rest of the transformer unchanged. On six heterogeneous text domains (Prose, Python, Math, Biomedical, Chinese, JavaScript) at 1B tokens per phase across three model scales (~398M, ~739M, ~9B) and two regimes (From-Scratch and Retrofit), TFGN achieves backward transfer of -0.007 at LLaMA 3.1 8B Retrofit, HellaSwag retention 0.506/0.504/0.510, and >=99.59% L2-orthogonal gradient separation between domain pairs - with no replay, no task IDs, no Fisher penalty. The same matrices show positive cross-domain forward transfer: held-out JavaScript PPL drops 26.8% at LLaMA-8B Retrofit and 62.0% at GPT-2 Medium From-Scratch purely from Python training. Two extensions on the same substrate close further open problems. A closed-loop meta-control layer (Extension A) reduces forgetting by an additional 81% at ~398M, mapping onto the System A and System M roles of Dupoux et al. (arXiv:2603.15381). An operator-level plan vector (Extension B) reshapes forward-pass behavior at 99.96% cosine fidelity over 30 source->target pairs. The architectural insight is a Read/Write decomposition: the forward pass is fully dense, while cross-domain parameter updates are structured so prior-domain subspaces are not written to. To our knowledge, TFGN is the first architecture that simultaneously closes catastrophic forgetting at LLM scale, realizes a closed-loop autonomous-learning meta-controller, and carries an operator-level latent planner.

Comment: Separates dense forward computation from domain-separated parameter writes during replay-free continual pretraining.

Topic Match: The read/write decomposition directly changes how a transformer incorporates training updates and preserves previously learned behavior.

Relevance: 9 Novelty: 8

2. Conditional Attribute Estimation with Autoregressive Sequence Models

ArXiv ID: 2605.14004

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Erica Stutz, Giacomo Marino, Daniella Meeker, Qiao Liu, Andrew J. Loza

Abstract: Generative models are often trained with a next-token prediction objective, yet many downstream applications require the ability to estimate or control sequence-level properties. Next-token prediction can lead to overfitting of local patterns during training, underfitting of global structure, and requires significant downstream modifications or expensive sampling to guide or predict the global attributes of generated samples at inference time. Here, we introduce Conditional Attribute Transformers, a novel method for jointly estimating the next-token probability and the value of an attribute conditional on each potential next token selection. This framework enables three critical capabilities within a single forward pass, without modification of the input sequence: (1) per-token credit assignment across an entire sequence, by identifying how each token in a sequence is associated with an attribute's value; (2) counterfactual analysis, by quantifying attribute differences conditional on alternative next token choices; (3) steerable generation, by decoding sequences based on a combination of next-token and attribute likelihoods. Our approach achieves state of the art performance on sparse reward tasks, improves next-token prediction at sufficient model sizes, estimates attribute probabilities orders of magnitude faster than sampling, and can guide decoding of autoregressive sequence models on a range of language tasks.

Comment: Joint next-token and conditional-attribute training adds sequence-level supervision to individual token choices.

Topic Match: The core change is an autoregressive training objective and prediction interface; next-token improvements are explicitly conditional on model size.

Relevance: 8 Novelty: 7

3. Hidden State Poisoning Attacks against Mamba-based Language Models

ArXiv ID: 2601.01972

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Alexandre Le Mercier, Chris Develder, Thomas Demeester

Abstract: State space models (SSMs) like Mamba offer efficient alternatives to Transformer-based language models, with linear time complexity. Yet, their adversarial robustness remains critically unexplored. This paper studies the phenomenon whereby specific short input phrases induce a partial amnesia effect in such models, by irreversibly overwriting information in their hidden states, referred to as a Hidden State Poisoning Attack (HiSPA). Our benchmark RoBench-25 allows evaluating a model's information retrieval capabilities when subject to HiSPAs, and confirms the vulnerability of SSMs against such attacks. Even the recent Jamba-1.7-Mini SSM--Transformer (a 52B hybrid model) collapses on RoBench-25 under some HiSPA triggers, whereas pure Transformers do not. We also observe that HiSPA triggers significantly weaken the Jamba model on the popular Open-Prompt-Injections benchmark, unlike pure Transformers. We further show that the theoretical and empirical findings extend to Mamba-2, and also analyse a Mamba-2-based hybrid (Nemotron-3-Nano). Finally, our interpretability study reveals patterns in Mamba's hidden layers during HiSPAs that could be used to build a HiSPA mitigation system. The full code and data to reproduce the experiments can be found at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/hispa_anonymous-5DB0.

Comment: Cross-architecture trigger tests expose irreversible overwriting of recurrent hidden-state information.

Topic Match: Recurrent-state behavior provides an architectural connection, but adversarial attacks and robustness evaluation are the paper's core subject.

Relevance: 4 Novelty: 7

4. SliceGraph: Mapping Process Isomers in Multi-Run Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

ArXiv ID: 2605.14619

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Kang Chen, Junjie Nian, Yixin Cao, Yugang Jiang

Abstract: Multi-run chain-of-thought reasoning is usually collapsed to final-answer aggregates, which discard howsampled trajectories share, split, and rejoin through intermediate computation. We propose SliceGraph, a post-hoc problem-model-cell graph built by mutual-kNN over sparse activation-key Jaccard similarity between CoT slices, and treat it as a measurement object for process geometry rather than as a decoding program. Across sampled CoT ensembles from three primary 4B/8B models on math and science benchmarks, blinded annotation supports SliceGraph biconnected components as shared reasoning-state units and process families as within-family strategy-coherent route units. In 85.5% of 954 problem-model cells, correct CoTs sharing the same normalized answer split into multiple process families; among cells with at least two such runs, 76.6% of run pairs are cross-family on average. We call such same-answer, family-divergent correct trajectories process isomers. A label-seeded reward field provides a separate value-landscape layer: success-associated regions often split into disconnected high-value cores, and route families specialize over these core footprints rather than merely duplicating one another. A typed-state transition analysis further shows that process families navigate the same atlas with distinct transition kernels under matched null controls. Representation ablations, a cross-architecture replication, and two cross-scale replications support the robustness of the route-family scaffold, showing that final-answer aggregation overlooks this structured multi-route process geometry.

Comment: Matched-null transition tests distinguish multiple internal reasoning routes that reach the same final answer.

Topic Match: Internal computation provides an architectural connection, but the contribution primarily catalogs reasoning-route geometry without explaining its formation during training.

Relevance: 4 Novelty: 7

5. Thinking Ahead: Prospection-Guided Retrieval of Memory with Language Models

ArXiv ID: 2605.14177

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Harshita Chopra, Krishna Kant Chintalapudi, Suman Nath, Ryen W. White, Chirag Shah

Abstract: Long-horizon personalization requires dialogue assistants to retrieve user-specific facts from extended interaction histories. In practice, many relevant facts often have low semanticsimilarity to the query under dense retrieval. Standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and GraphRAG systems are still largely retrospective: they rely on embedding similarity to the query or on fixed graph traversals, so they often miss facts that matter for the user's needs but lie far from the query in embedding space. Inspired by prospection, the human ability to use imagined futures as cues for recall, we introduce Prospection-Guided Retrieval (PGR), which decouples retrieval from how memories are stored. Given a user query, PGR first expands the goal into a short Tree-of-Thought (ToT) or linear chain of plausible next steps, and uses these steps as retrieval probes rather than relying on the original query alone. The facts retrieved by these probes are then used to personalize the next round of prospection, enabling PGR to uncover additional memories that become relevant only after the simulation is grounded in the user's history. We also introduce MemoryQuest, a challenging multi-session benchmark in which each query is annotated with 3--5 dated reference facts subject to a low query-reference similarity constraint. Across 1,625 queries spanning 185 user profiles from 3 publicly available datasets, PGR-TOT substantially improves retrieval, including nearly 3x recall on MemoryQuest over the strongest baseline. In pairwise LLM-as-judge comparisons against baselines, PGR-generated responses are preferred on 89--98% of queries, with blinded human annotations on held-out subsets showing the same trend. Overall, the results demonstrate that explicit prospection yields large gains in long-horizon retrieval and response quality relative to similarity-only baselines.

Comment: Prospective reasoning steps become iterative retrieval probes for memories with low query similarity.

Topic Match: Retrieval orchestration is the nearest architectural connection; the contribution belongs to agent memory and personalization.

Relevance: 3 Novelty: 6

6. MeMo: Memory as a Model

ArXiv ID: 2605.15156

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Ryan Wei Heng Quek, Sanghyuk Lee, Alfred Wei Lun Leong, Arun Verma, Alok Prakash, Nancy F. Chen, Bryan Kian Hsiang Low, Daniela Rus, Armando Solar-Lezama

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance across a wide range of tasks, but remain frozen after pretraining until subsequent updates. Many real-world applications require timely, domain-specific information, motivating the need for efficient mechanisms to incorporate new knowledge. In this paper, we introduce MeMo (Memory as a Model), a modular framework that encodes new knowledge into a dedicated memory model while keeping the LLM parameters unchanged. Compared to existing methods, MeMo offers several advantages: (a) it captures complex cross-document relationships, (b) it is robust to retrieval noise, (c) it avoids catastrophic forgetting in the LLM, (d) it does not require access to the LLM's weights or output logits, enabling plug-and-play integration with both open and proprietary closed-source LLMs, and (e) its retrieval cost is independent of corpus size at inference time. Our experimental results on three benchmarks, BrowseComp-Plus, NarrativeQA, and MuSiQue, show that MeMo achieves strong performance compared to existing methods across diverse settings.

Comment: A dedicated memory model incorporates new knowledge while keeping the base LLM frozen.

Topic Match: Modular model composition is the nearest connection, but the core subject is an external knowledge-memory system.

Relevance: 3 Novelty: 6

7. EvolveMem:Self-Evolving Memory Architecture via AutoResearch for LLM Agents

ArXiv ID: 2605.13941

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Jiaqi Liu, Xinyu Ye, Peng Xia, Zeyu Zheng, Cihang Xie, Mingyu Ding, Huaxiu Yao

Abstract: Long-term memory is essential for LLM agents that operate across multiple sessions, yet existing memory systems treat retrieval infrastructure as fixed: stored content evolves while scoring functions, fusion strategies, and answer-generation policies remain frozen at deployment. We argue that truly adaptive memory requires co-evolution at two levels: the stored knowledge and the retrieval mechanism that queries it. We present EvolveMem, a self-evolving memory architecture that exposes its full retrieval configuration as a structured action space optimized by an LLM-powered diagnosis module. In each evolution round, the module reads per-question failure logs, identifies root causes, and proposes targeted configuration adjustments; a guarded meta-analyzer applies them with automatic revert-on-regression and explore-on-stagnation safeguards. This closed-loop self-evolution realizes an AutoResearch process: the system autonomously conducts iterative research cycles on its own architecture, replacing manual configuration tuning. Starting from a minimal baseline, the process converges autonomously, discovering effective retrieval strategies including entirely new configuration dimensions not present in the original action space. On LoCoMo, EvolveMem outperforms the strongest baseline by 25.7% relative and achieves a 78.0% relative improvement over the minimal baseline. On MemBench, EvolveMem exceeds the strongest baseline by 18.9% relative. Evolved configurations transfer across benchmarks with positive rather than catastrophic transfer, indicating that the self-evolution process captures universal retrieval principles rather than benchmark-specific heuristics. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/SimpleMem.

Comment: Failure-guided configuration search adapts retrieval policies with automatic regression checks.

Topic Match: Adaptive system configuration is the nearest architectural connection, but the optimized object is an agent-memory retrieval pipeline.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 6

8. ASH: Agents that Self-Hone via Embodied Learning

ArXiv ID: 2605.14211

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Benjamin Schneider, Xavier Schneider, Victor Zhong, Sun Sun

Abstract: Long-horizon embodied tasks remain a fundamental challenge in AI, as current methods rely on hand-engineered rewards or action-labeled demonstrations, neither of which scales. We introduce ASH, an agentic system that learns an embodied policy from unlabeled, noisy internet video, without reward shaping or expert annotation. ASH follows a self-improvement loop; when it gets stuck, ASH learns an Inverse Dynamics Model (IDM) from its own trajectories, and uses its IDM to extract supervision from relevant internet video. ASH uses unsupervised learning to identify key moments from large-scale internet video and retains them as long-term memory -- allowing it to tackle long-horizon problems. We evaluate ASH on two complementary environments demanding multi-hour planning: Pokemon Emerald, a turn-based RPG, and The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, a real-time action-adventure game. In both games, behavioral cloning, retrieval-augmented and zero-shot foundation-model baselines plateau, while ASH sustains progression across our 8-hour evaluation. ASH reaches an average of $11.2/12$ milestones in Pokemon Emerald and $9.9/12$ in Legend of Zelda, while the strongest baseline gets stuck in both environments at an average of $6.5/12$ and $6.0/12$ milestones, respectively. We demonstrate that self-improving agents are a scalable recipe for long-horizon embodied learning.

Comment: A self-trained inverse dynamics model converts unlabeled internet video into supervision for continued policy learning.

Topic Match: The learning loop is the nearest training connection; its subject is embodied-agent policy acquisition outside language-model training.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 7

9. Few Channels Draw The Whole Picture: Revealing Massive Activations in Diffusion Transformers

ArXiv ID: 2605.13974

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Evelyn Turri, Davide Bucciarelli, Sara Sarto, Lorenzo Baraldi, Marcella Cornia

Abstract: Diffusion Transformers (DiTs) and related flow-based architectures are now among the strongest text-to-image generators, yet the internal mechanisms through which prompts shape image semantics remain poorly understood. In this work, we study massive activations: a small subset of hidden-state channels whose responses are consistently much larger than the rest. We show that, despite their sparsity, these few channels effectively draw the whole picture, in three complementary senses. First, they are functionally critical: a controlled disruption probe that zeroes the massive channels causes a sharp collapse in generation quality, while disrupting an equally-sized set of low-statistic channels has marginal effect. Second, they are spatially organized: restricting image-stream tokens to massive channels and clustering them yields coherent partitions that closely align with the main subject and salient regions, exposing a structured spatial code hidden inside an apparently outlier-like subspace. Third, they are transferable: transporting massive activations from one prompt-conditioned trajectory into another, shifts the final image toward the source prompt while preserving substantial content from the target, producing localized semantic interpolation rather than unstructured pixel blending. We exploit this property in two use cases: text-conditioned and image-conditioned semantic transport, where massive activations transport enables prompt interpolation and subject-driven generation without any additional training. Together, these results recast massive activations not as activation anomalies, but as a sparse prompt-conditioned carrier subspace that organizes and controls semantic information in modern DiT models.

Comment: Controlled channel ablations and activation transport test whether a sparse subspace carries prompt semantics.

Topic Match: Causal analysis of internal computation fits the architectural theme, but the studied diffusion transformers generate images.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 8

10. Grounded Continuation: A Linear-Time Runtime Verifier for LLM Conversations

ArXiv ID: 2605.14175

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Qisong He, Yi Dong, Xiaowei Huang

Abstract: In long conversations, an LLM can produce a next utterance that sounds plausible but rests on premises the conversation has already abandoned. Context-manipulation attacks against deployed agents now actively exploit this gap. We close it with a runtime verifier that maintains an explicit dependency graph: an LLM classifies each turn into one of 8 update operations drawn from four formalisms (dynamic epistemic logic, abductive reasoning, awareness logic, argumentation), and a symbolic engine records which claims depend on which evidence. Checking whether a continuation is supported reduces to a graph walk; retraction propagates through the same graph to flag exactly the conclusions that lose support, with linear per-turn cost and a formal conflict-free guarantee. On LongMemEval-KU oracle (n=78), the verifier reaches 89.7% accuracy vs. 88.5% for the LLM-only baseline (+1.3pp) and 87.2% for a transcript-RAG baseline matched on retrieval budget (+2.6pp); wins among disagreements are correct abstentions where the baseline confabulates. On LoCoMo's 60 official QA items the verifier is competitive with retrieval-augmented baselines. Beyond external benchmarks, we construct two multi-agent scenarios and a 50-item grounding test: on the 15-item stale-premise subset, the verifier reaches 100% accuracy vs. 93.3% (+6.7pp). These instantiate a soundness-faithfulness decomposition: the structural check is sound by construction, and per-deployment LLM extraction faithfulness is the empirical question we measure across four LLM families. The retraction check plateaus at microseconds while history-replay grows linearly with conversation length.

Comment: Explicit evidence dependencies enable linear-time retraction and continuation-support checks.

Topic Match: Modular symbolic computation is the nearest category; the system verifies conversations at runtime outside the model-training stack.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 6

11. Non-linear Interventions on Large Language Models

ArXiv ID: 2605.14749

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Sangwoo Kim

Abstract: Intervention is one of the most representative and widely used methods for understanding the internal representations of large language models (LLMs). However, existing intervention methods are confined to linear interventions grounded in the Linear Representation Hypothesis, leaving features encoded along non-linear manifolds beyond their reach. In this work, we introduce a general formulation of intervention that extends naturally to non-linearly represented features, together with a learning procedure that further enables intervention on implicit features lacking a direct output signature. We validate our framework on refusal bypass steering, where it steers the model more precisely than linear baselines by intervening on a non-linear feature governing refusal.

Comment: Nonlinear-manifold interventions reach features missed by linear activation steering.

Topic Match: Intervention geometry connects to internal representations, but the contribution centers on interpretability and refusal steering.

Relevance: 3 Novelty: 7

12. Agentifying Patient Dynamics within LLMs through Interacting with Clinical World Model

ArXiv ID: 2605.14723

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Minghao Wu, Yuting Yan, Zhenyang Cai, Ke Ji, Chuangsen Fang, Ziying Sheng, Xidong Wang, Rongsheng Wang, Hejia Zhang, Shuang Li, Benyou Wang, Hongyuan Zha

Abstract: Sepsis management in the ICU requires sequential treatment decisions under rapidly evolving patient physiology. Although large language models (LLMs) encode broad clinical knowledge and can reason over guidelines, they are not inherently grounded in action-conditioned patient dynamics. We introduce SepsisAgent, a world model-augmented LLM agent for sepsis treatment recommendation. SepsisAgent uses a learned Clinical World Model to simulate patient responses under candidate fluid--vasopressor interventions, and follows a propose--simulate--refine workflow before committing to a prescription. We first show that world-model access alone yields inconsistent LLM decision performance, motivating agent-specific training. We then train SepsisAgent through a three-stage curriculum: patient-dynamics supervised fine-tuning, propose--simulate--refine behavior cloning, and world-model-based agentic reinforcement learning. On MIMIC-IV sepsis trajectories, SepsisAgent outperforms all traditional RL and LLM-based baselines in off-policy value while achieving the best safety profile under guideline adherence and unsafe-action metrics. Further analysis shows that repeated interaction with the Clinical World Model enables the agent to learn regularities in patient evolution, which remain useful even when simulator access is removed.

Comment: A world-model-guided curriculum trains action-conditioned patient-dynamics behavior in an LLM agent.

Topic Match: The training curriculum is the nearest connection, but the contribution is downstream clinical-agent post-training.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 5

13. Policy Optimization in Hybrid Discrete-Continuous Action Spaces via Mixed Gradients

ArXiv ID: 2605.14297

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Matias Alvo, Daniel Russo, Yash Kanoria

Abstract: We study reinforcement learning in hybrid discrete-continuous action spaces, such as settings where the discrete component selects a regime (or index) and the continuous component optimizes within it -- a structure common in robotics, control, and operations problems. Standard model-free policy gradient methods rely on score-function (SF) estimators and suffer from severe credit-assignment issues in high-dimensional settings, leading to poor gradient quality. On the other hand, differentiable simulation largely sidesteps these issues by backpropagating through a simulator, but the presence of discrete actions or non-smooth dynamics yields biased or uninformative gradients. To address this, we propose Hybrid Policy Optimization (HPO), which backpropagates through the simulator wherever smoothness permits, using a mixed gradient estimator that combines pathwise and SF gradients while maintaining unbiasedness. We also show how problems with action discontinuities can be reformulated in hybrid form, further broadening its applicability. Empirically, HPO substantially outperforms PPO on inventory control and switched linear-quadratic regulator problems, with performance gaps increasing as the continuous action dimension grows. Finally, we characterize the structure of the mixed gradient, showing that its cross term -- which captures how continuous actions influence future discrete decisions -- becomes negligible near a discrete best response, thereby enabling approximate decentralized updates of the continuous and discrete components and reducing variance near optimality. All resources are available at github.com/MatiasAlvo/hybrid-rl.

Comment: An unbiased mixed estimator combines pathwise and score-function gradients for hybrid discrete-continuous actions.

Topic Match: Gradient-estimator design is the closest optimization connection, but the trained objects are control policies.

Relevance: 2 Novelty: 7

14. Fast Rates for Inverse Reinforcement Learning

ArXiv ID: 2605.14599

Primary Topic: Architecture and Training Dynamics

Authors: Andreas Schlaginhaufen, Maryam Kamgarpour

Abstract: We establish novel structural and statistical results for entropy-regularized min-max inverse reinforcement learning (Min-Max-IRL) with linear reward classes in finite-horizon MDPs with Borel state and action spaces. On the structural side, we show that maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and Min-Max-IRL are equivalent at the population level, and at the empirical level under deterministic dynamics. On the statistical side, exploiting pseudo-self-concordance of the Min-Max-IRL loss, we prove that both the trajectory-level KL divergence and the squared parameter error in the Hessian norm decay at the fast rate $\mathcal{O}(n^{-1})$, where $n$ is the number of expert trajectories. Our guarantees apply under misspecification and require no exploration assumptions. We further extend reward-identifiability results to general Borel spaces and derive novel results on the derivatives of the soft-optimal value function with respect to reward parameters.

Comment: Pseudo-self-concordance yields fast statistical rates for linear-reward inverse reinforcement learning.

Topic Match: Optimization and estimation theory are the closest connection; learning rewards from expert trajectories falls outside language-model training.

Relevance: 1 Novelty: 7

Efficiency, Compression, and Large-Scale Training (1)

1. Uncovering the Representation Geometry of Minimal Cores in Overcomplete Reasoning Traces

ArXiv ID: 2605.14358

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

Authors: Sanjoy Chowdhury, Dinesh Manocha

Abstract: Language models often generate long chain-of-thought traces, but it remains unclear how much of this reasoning is necessary for preserving the final prediction. We study this through the lens of overcomplete reasoning traces: generated traces that contain more intermediate steps than are needed to support the model's answer. We define the minimal core as the smallest subset of steps that preserves either the final answer or predictive distribution, and introduce metrics for compression ratio, redundancy mass, step necessity, and necessity concentration. Across six deliberative reasoning benchmarks spanning arithmetic, competition mathematics, expert scientific reasoning, and commonsense multi-hop QA, we find substantial overcompleteness: on average, 46% of steps are removable under greedy minimal-core extraction while preserving the original answer in 86% of cases. We also find that predictive support is concentrated: the top three steps account for 65% of measured necessity mass on average. Beyond compression, minimal cores expose a cleaner geometry of reasoning: compared with full traces, they improve correct-incorrect trace separation by 11 points, reduce estimated intrinsic dimensionality by 34%, and transfer across model families with 85% off-diagonal answer retention. Theoretically, we establish existence of minimal sufficient subsets, local irreducibility guarantees for greedy elimination, and certificates of overcompleteness and sparse necessity. Together, these results suggest that full reasoning traces are often verbose and overcomplete, while minimal cores isolate the effective support underlying language-model predictions.

Comment: Greedy step deletion estimates how much generated reasoning can be removed while preserving predictions.

Topic Match: Compression is the closest topic, but the compressed object is a generated reasoning trace, an explicitly excluded core subject.

Relevance: 3 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.