arXiv AI
How Much Evidence Should a Coding Agent's Self-Correction Carry? Adaptive Dirichlet Evidence for Self-Distillation
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Aug 26
When Can One Neuron Fix Repetition Loops in LLMs?
The paper investigates whether targeted edits to a few internal components of Gemma 4 instruction‑tuned models can reduce persistent repetition loops that occur during long factual enumeration prompts. By combining per‑layer ablation with per‑neuron attribution, the authors identify specific neurons whose weight edits dramatically lower loop frequency—one sign‑inverted neuron suffices for Gemma 4 E2B. Across all four Gemma variants, loop occurrences drop from 46/384 to 12/384 on held‑out prompts, while general‑purpose benchmarks show no significant regressions. The study also demonstrates that similar sparse edits can mitigate repetition in other families such as Qwen3.5 and LFM2.5, though the effect varies.
arXiv AI
Sep 30
AdviSD: Learning to Advise Frontier LLMs via Targeted Multi-Turn Self-Distillation
arXiv:2609.38142v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A small trainable advisor can steer a frozen language-model executor using natural-language advice. In addition to learning from task rewards, the advi...
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 24
Nothing Changed but the Model: CellFill -- Bounded In-Cell Learning for Bit-Identical, Revocable Updates to Quantized LLMs
arXiv:2608.20873v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Every way of teaching a deployed language model something new -- full fine-tuning, adapter merging, model editing -- replaces the released checkpoint,...
arXiv AI
Aug 6
Agentic Reinforcement Learning with Observation-Calibrated Self-Distillation
arXiv:2608. 04788v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model agents are commonly trained through reinforcement learning with sparse trajectory-level rewards, which offer limited guidance on how strongly individual tokens should be updated.
arXiv AI
Sep 25
Sequential knowledge editing breaks a model's ability to tell good evidence from bad, without costing it accuracy
The paper investigates how sequential knowledge editing can degrade a language model’s ability to discern reliable evidence from unreliable evidence without affecting overall accuracy. Using a conservatively tuned LoRA on Qwen2.5‑7B‑Instruct, the authors show that after 1,000 edits the model’s arbitration score for untouched facts drops by 36%, leading to higher error rates on its most confident decisions, while MMLU accuracy remains unchanged. The study also finds that in some model‑method combinations, sequential edits can reduce MMLU to chance levels even though edit success and locality remain perfect.
arXiv AI
Jun 15
Can Editing 1 Neuron Fix Repetition Loops in LLMs?
arXiv:2606. 13705v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Yes.