arXiv:2509. 11208v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Transformers used for evidence-grounded binary adjudication (e.
By Leon Chlon, Ahmed Karim, Maggie Chlon, MarcAntonio Awada
arXiv:2607. 18804v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In the \emph{latent posterior model} of transformer behavior, the next-token distribution arises from a posterior over latent predictive models conditioned on the context, mixed to generate continuations.
By Garrett Baker, Vinayak Pathak, Daniel Murfet, Susan Wei
The paper introduces F-ICL, a benchmark that measures in‑context algorithmic reasoning in language models by exhaustively enumerating 86 million valid programs of length ≤13 on a Turing‑complete machine and computing the exact posterior under a bounded Levin–Solomonoff prior. Unlike typical benchmarks, F‑ICL provides a distributional reference rather than just answers, allowing the evaluation of models’ inductive priors. Across 105 configurations of models ranging from 0.8 B to 675 B parameters, models achieve up to 92 % accuracy, yet many still deviate from the Bayes‑optimal reference, and the study derives theoretical bounds on cumulative loss for predictors with positive prior weight on the reference.
By Luan Ozelim, Hector Zenil
arXiv:2607. 17060v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A Bayes-filtered transformer (BFT) is a transformer trained on sequences that are generated in two steps: first a latent task is drawn from a prior, then observations are drawn conditional on that task.
By Afiq Abdillah Effiezal Aswadi, Haotong Ma, Susan Wei
The paper presents a Bayesian framework that unifies several large‑language‑model training and evaluation paradigms—supervised fine‑tuning (SFT), few‑shot in‑context learning (ICL), and KL‑regularized reinforcement learning (RLHF/RLVR). It shows that each method can be viewed as a two‑step process: first constructing a Bayes or Gibbs posterior over outputs or actions using a prior and a utility signal, then approximating this posterior via a forward‑KL projection onto a parametric family. The authors formalize ICL and SFT as amortized weight projections, and demonstrate that reward‑weighted SFT, reward‑weighted ICL, and advantage‑weighted SFT are all special cases of forward‑KL projection onto reward‑induced posteriors, while also outlining where these equivalences hold and where they break down.
By Junxin Fan
arXiv:2507. 01414v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We introduce a new family of toy problems that combine features of linear-regression-style continuous in-context learning (ICL) with discrete associative recall.
By Sultan Daniels, Dylan Davis, Dhruv Gautam, Wentinn Liao, Gireeja Ranade, Anant Sahai