arXiv:2601. 22146v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Due to limited supervised training data, large language models (LLMs) are typically pre-trained via a self-supervised "predict the next word" objective on a vast amount of unstructured text data.
By Ajay Patel, Colin Raffel, Chris Callison-Burch
arXiv:2607. 08399v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models process prompts by propagating activations through dozens of layers before generating a response.
By Thibaud Ardoin, Semira Einsele, Evis Bregu, Gerhard Wunder
arXiv:2602. 14696v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Instruction fine-tuning of large language models (LLMs) often involves selecting a subset of instruction training data from a large candidate pool, using a small query set from the target task.
By Nihal V. Nayak, Paula Rodriguez-Diaz, Neha Hulkund, Sara Beery, David Alvarez-Melis
The paper introduces DKL, a method for adding new knowledge to instruction‑tuned language models without compromising their instruction‑following abilities. DKL performs extended pre‑training on a base LLM to embed knowledge, then merges these weights into the instruction‑tuned model, avoiding costly instruction fine‑tuning. Experiments show DKL raises RAG accuracy from 54.17% to 79.26% on retrieval failure cases while using far less training data than previous approaches.
By Kushagra Bhushan, Meghanadh Pulivarthi, Sai Krishna Reddy Sathi, Gaurav Pandey, Sonam Gupta, Vineet Kumar, Jaydeep Sen, Yatin Nandwani, Sachindra Joshi, Dinesh Raghu
Instruction tuning is often thought to give language models a universal ability to follow instructions, but this study shows otherwise. By probing nine tasks across three models, the authors find that general probes reveal selective, not uniform, deficits, cross‑task transfer is weak and skill‑similar, and causal ablation uncovers sparse, asymmetric dependencies. The results suggest instruction following is a coordinated use of diverse linguistic skills rather than a single shared mechanism.
By Elisabetta Rocchetti, Alfio Ferrara
arXiv:2606. 12117v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark scores often misrepresent a large language model's (LLM's) knowledge, because they rely, e.
By Selen Erkan, Bastian Boll, Kristian Kersting, Bj\"orn Deiseroth, Letitia Parcalabescu
The paper introduces DKL, a method that decouples knowledge learning from instruction tuning in language models. Instead of fine‑tuning the instruction‑tuned model directly, DKL first extends pre‑training on a base model to embed new knowledge, then merges these weights into the instruction‑tuned model, preserving its instruction‑following abilities. Experiments show DKL raises RAG accuracy from 54.17 % to 79.26 % on retrieval failures, outperforming prior methods while using far less training data.
arXiv:2606. 08601v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated impressive potential for time series forecasting.
By Peiliang Gong, Emadeldeen Eldele, Chenyu Liu, Ziyu Jia, Yi Ding, Xinliang Zhou, Lianchao Gu, Qi Zhu, Yang Liu, Daoqiang Zhang, Xiaoli Li
The paper introduces Variance‑Calibrated Modulation (VCM), a training‑free pre‑decoding technique that reshapes language model probability distributions before truncation. VCM uses two dynamic mechanisms: a Contextual Searchlight via PMI to suppress stopwords and highlight context‑relevant tokens, and an Adaptive Self‑Debiasing that applies scale‑invariant penalization based on real‑time logit standard deviation. Experiments on open‑ended generation, factual QA, and mathematical reasoning show that VCM consistently reduces the likelihood trap, improving diversity, coherence, and reasoning accuracy with minimal computational cost.
By Yuanhao Ding, Meimingwei Li, Esteban Garces Arias, Matthias A{\ss}enmacher, Christian Heumann, Chongsheng Zhang
The paper introduces a three-level evaluation framework—behavioral deployment, LM-head readout, and probe recoverability—to distinguish whether a language model fails a syntactic test by not encoding structure or by failing to use it. Using a trilingual control-dependency benchmark, the authors find that probe recoverability consistently exceeds LM-head readout, which in turn exceeds behavioral deployment across seven models and three languages, with the largest gap observed in Qwen3-0.6B Instruct. Layer-localized activation patching shows that instruction tuning shifts the decoded layer later, suggesting decoding favors surface shortcuts and that behavioral evaluation understates what models encode while probing alone overstates what they deploy.
By Zhenyan Lu, He Wang, Xiaohui Huang
The paper investigates using synthetic natural-language descriptions to contrastively pretrain small transformer encoders for code representation. By pairing generated descriptions with code in a dual-encoder setup during training and discarding them at inference, the authors achieve significant improvements over traditional pretraining baselines on most evaluated tasks. When fine‑tuned, these models match or surpass much larger zero‑shot models and remain competitive with execution‑aware supervision, indicating a scalable alternative for code embeddings.
By Kenneth Paulsen, Florian Tambon, Mike Papadakis, Shin Yoo
LuxIT is a monolingual instruction‑tuning dataset for Luxembourgish, created by synthesizing instruction‑answer pairs from native texts using the DeepSeek‑R1‑0528 model and a quality‑assurance LLM‑as‑judge process. The resulting 227,507 high‑quality pairs were used to fine‑tune 14 LLMs (≤15 B parameters), yielding an average accuracy increase of +5.37 percentage points on standardized Luxembourgish proficiency exams and improvements in macro‑averaged F1 on nine of the fourteen downstream NLP tasks. These findings demonstrate that synthetic monolingual data can effectively enhance LLM performance in low‑resource languages and reveal the complex relationship between exam performance and practical NLP gains.
By Julian Valline, Cedric Lothritz, Siwen Guo, Jordi Cabot