arXiv:2604. 09870v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We investigate how looped transformers encode human preference, training lightweight evaluator heads on frozen Ouro-2.
arXiv:2606. 31963v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern LLM workflows move coordinate-indexed objects across checkpoints: steering vectors, sparse autoencoders, top-$k$ neuron sets, attribution lists, and merge alignments.
arXiv:2608.20647v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Splitting a bidirectional LSTM's contextual representation into a forward-only $F_i$ (strictly a function of tokens $1..i$) and a backward-only $B_i$ (...
arXiv:2608. 12652v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark contamination is diagnosed today with n-gram overlap, with likelihood-based membership inference, or with canary strings, and each needs something usually unavailable: the training corpus, a well-chosen test statistic, or foresight at dataset release.
arXiv:2607. 20864v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Position bias in multiple-choice LLM evaluation is widely cited as a confound in capability comparisons, but published measurements rely on single answer-order shuffles whose results confound the bias signal with content-level noise and sampling stochasticity.
arXiv:2606. 20364v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A companion study established a de-biased, cross-model VLM-as-3D-judge that reliably ranks single-image-to-3D mesh quality where cheap geometry and CLIP proxies fall short.
The paper introduces a pluralistic agreement index, Gamma, to quantify how often wrong runs of large language models (LLMs) agree with the majority consensus. By decomposing Gamma into a mechanical component and a preference‑unexplained residual, the authors show that on GPT‑4.1 the mechanical part explains most of the agreement on multiple‑choice benchmarks but only about half on open‑domain tasks, revealing a residual bias that can cause self‑consistency to backfire on hard questions. The study provides a quantitative framework for understanding when majority voting over LLM samples improves or harms accuracy, without proposing new voting methods.
The study investigates how the composition of data during the mid‑training phase of language models affects performance across multiple domains. Experiments with Qwen3‑8B‑Base on five distinct KOR‑Bench domains show that moderate coverage (10%‑40%) yields the best per‑domain results, and that alignment passes cannot fully close the performance gaps created by mid‑training data choices. Additionally, zero coverage in mid‑training severely degrades accuracy, while a carefully tuned allocation can provide the largest overall pipeline improvement.
arXiv:2607. 11950v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Brain field potentials are scale-free: their power spectra follow a $1/f^{\beta}$ law whose aperiodic exponent $\beta$ tracks cortical state, and sleep depth in particular is a shift in $\beta$.
arXiv:2606. 01090v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Equivariance theory predicts that an architectural symmetry prior reduces sample complexity by a factor of |G|; this is widely cited but rarely measured as a scaling law with controls that separate the prior from its confounds.
arXiv:2606. 23767v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Headline accuracies on the Tuebingen cause-effect pairs are routinely compared across papers even though each is measured under its authors' own protocol -- different pair subsets, weightings, model-selection, and decision rates.
arXiv:2607. 23976v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Appending a two-word confirmation tag to a decision question -- "Is X the better choice?
arXiv:2607. 04926v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: How does the way information reaches a transformer -- as symbolic tokens, a clean per-factor "oracle" code, or an entangled perceptual vector -- shape whether it binds that information compositionally?