Papers for

language model engineers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Fisher conditioned subspaces improve on policy self distillation scores

SCOPE-OPSD: Fisher-Conditioned Privileged Subspaces for On-Policy Self-Distillation

Abstract: On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) scores student-generated prefixes with a solution-conditioned self-teacher, yet transfers supervision only through next-token probabilities. We ask whether the aligned final-layer discrepancy offers a useful second channel, and how to test that channel without confusing its geometry with auxiliary strength. SCOPE-OPSD projects the privileged teacher-student residual onto a frozen rank-64 factor estimated from residual covariance and language-model-head Fisher sensitivity. It reuses the forwards already required by OPSD and adds neither rollouts nor inference-time modules. A matched Random control preserves the structured factor's rank and nonzero spectrum and uses per-arm gradient-RMS calibration, isolating the effect of the data-dependent orientation. Across the complete 25/50/75/100-step trajectories for Qwen3-1.7B, 4B, and 8B, Structured is never below Pure OPSD, with strict gains in 11 of the 12 model-checkpoint combinations and an exact tie at 4B step 25. Structured also exceeds matched Random in 10 of the 12 combinations. At step 75 on Qwen3-1.7B, Structured exceeds matched Random by 1.39 Macro Avg@12 points in each of two independent training reruns. A cross-fitted diagnostic also shows 4.40 times greater held-out privileged-gap capture than the matched random orientation. The results support a compact, Fisher-conditioned privileged subspace for short-budget OPSD.

Fri 11 SeptMachine LearningArtificial Intelligence
The gist
The paper explores a way to improve on-policy self-distillation, a method where an AI learns from its own generated answers to get better at tasks like language modeling. The authors introduced a technique that uses a special mathematical projection based on something called the Fisher information to capture helpful signals from the differences between the AI's predictions and a teacher's guidance. Their approach shows consistent improvements across multiple large language models without adding extra computation during training or evaluation. This suggests a more efficient way to teach AI systems to learn from themselves faster.
Open 2609.12579v1

Fact recall errors linked to memory limits in AI models

The Cost of Compression: A Rate-Distortion Limit on Factual Hallucination

Abstract: Factual hallucination in closed-book question answering is often treated as a coverage problem: a model fails because the relevant fact is absent from its internal memory. This view misses a second source of error. Even when a fact has been observed, finite memory may force it to be stored only approximately. We study this effect through a simple coverage--compression model of factual recall. We consider an unstructured question-answering task with $N$ possible queries and $K$ possible answers. A learner observes $M$ training facts, compresses them into at most $B$ bits, and answers uniformly drawn test queries without retrieval. For a uniformly random ground-truth mapping, we prove $\mathcal{E} \geq \frac{M}{N}δ^\star\!\left(\frac{B}{M}\right) + \left(1-\frac{M}{N}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{K}\right)$, where $δ^\star(r)$ is the inverse rate-distortion function of a uniform $K$-ary source under zero-one loss. The two terms separate compression distortion on observed facts from missing coverage on unobserved facts. The bound gives a compact way to reason about selective memory, forced compression, structure, retrieval, abstention, and long-context organization. We study the predicted signatures with theory-implied simulations and controlled fact-injection probes in modern language models that vary fact load and effective trainable memory. The result is not a complete theory of hallucination, but an information-theoretic account of a separable failure mode: lossy recall of observed facts under finite memory.

Thu 10 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Sometimes AI gets facts wrong because it doesn’t remember them precisely, not just because it never learned them. The authors show that when a model has limited memory to store facts, it must compress information and this compression can cause errors. They prove a mathematical limit on how well a model can recall facts after compressing them. Their work helps explain one reason why AI sometimes hallucinates false information even when it has seen the truth before.
Open 2609.12111v1

Language models shift how they use question and answer information

From Parameters to Answers: How LLMs Retrieve and Use Their Internal Knowledge

Abstract: How does a language model's dependence on query-routing information and target knowledge change as it answers a question? We study this question through layerwise interventions on the hidden state at the end of the question. Across Qwen, Llama, and Gemma, we compare country-continent questions with noun, adjective, and code answers while keeping several fitted measurements distinct. A pair-conditioned request direction describes which country is queried in natural single-country questions; a global request direction describes first- versus second-country requests in paired questions; separate selection candidates test control among contents already available in the hidden state. A diagnostic reanalysis of frozen Qwen natural-question states shows that the pair-conditioned direction grows stronger before interventions on it begin to alter later fitted knowledge, with this causal window opening while answer-supporting content is still forming. The paired three-model trajectories are not uniform: Gemma shows a partially overlapping mid-layer routing-content profile, whereas Llama has no sustained routing-effect window under the same gates. In the paired protocol, dependence on the global request direction decreases from fixed earlier to later layer sets while dependence on fitted content persists. A matched Qwen comparison shows that the pair-conditioned direction retains a late effect, so this operational handoff concerns the global fitted direction rather than all request information. These results separate early readability, natural strength, causal steering, and later content dependence.

Thu 10 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
This paper studies how large language models (LLMs) use different types of information as they answer questions. The authors look at how models like Qwen, Llama, and Gemma change their focus from the question’s details to the content they already have inside them while forming answers. They find that the timing and way models use this internal knowledge varies across models and layers, showing a complex process inside the AI as it moves from understanding the question to generating the answer. This helps separate which parts of the model handle understanding questions and which parts produce the final content.
Open 2609.11859v1

Speech models encode word identity beyond phonemes in later layers

Do speech foundation models really learn words?

Abstract: Self-supervised speech foundation models are now used in a wide array of downstream applications, including traditional speech recognition and as the basis for tokens in speech-aware language models. Attempts to understand their usefulness have largely focused on probing their representations' ability to discriminate phonemes and words. However, discriminative ability for words need not imply specialized representation of words per se. Good discrimination of words may be explained by good encoding of word form (phonemes) rather than form-independent word representations encoding identity or syntactic/semantic properties. By partialling out phoneme information using residualization, we show that, in later layers, HuBERT and wav2vec 2.0 do in general learn representations which encode words with reasonable fidelity independently of local phonetic content. We show that this simple approach to disentanglement can enhance higher-order linguistic information in word discovery tasks.

Wed 9 SeptComputation and LanguageSound
The gist
Speech models like HuBERT and wav2vec 2.0 can recognize individual words, but this could just mean they identify sounds rather than the words themselves. The authors found that these models do actually learn representations of whole words that are separate from the sounds they contain, especially in later layers of the model. They used a method to remove the influence of phonemes and showed that the models still keep important word information. This helps improve tasks that try to find words in speech based on meaning and structure, not just sound.
Open 2609.10434v1

Reading transformer differences reveals model-specific token patterns

Contrastive Projection: Reading Transformer Internals by Differencing Logit Lenses

Abstract: Reading a transformer's internal states in token space is easy to do and hard to trust: a logit lens on a single hidden state is dominated, at intermediate layers, by the generic tokens the model would predict for almost any input. We read the difference instead. Subtracting two closely matched prompts' hidden states and projecting through the unembedding cancels the shared component and surfaces what separates them, an operation equivalent to reading a RepE/ActAdd steering vector through a logit lens. Built into a training-free tracer that reads at every position, sub-layer, and head and averages over designed baselines, it traces a compound- noun MLP->attention chain in Phi-2, confirmed there by activation patching, with the same distinction recovered across three architectures by readout and probe rather than by patching; it reads what retrieval surfaces for real versus fictional entities, and reads metaphor as a set of domain-to-domain mappings rather than a single figurativity feature. A cross-seed control marks the boundary: across five networks differing only in initialization, the same distinction surfaces as almost entirely different tokens (top-10 overlap 0.08). What a computation looks like in token space is network-specific; the distinction it draws is not

Wed 9 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Transformer models can be hard to understand because their internal states often reflect common predictions rather than specific details. The authors show that by comparing the differences between similar inputs inside the model, they can highlight what truly distinguishes those inputs. This approach helps reveal how models process complex ideas like nouns, real versus fictional entities, and metaphors. Even though different models focus on very different tokens, the key distinctions they make are consistent.
Open 2609.09902v1

Training objective not architecture drives attention sink in long context models

Do New Attention Mechanisms Actually Fix Attention Sinks at Million-Token Context?

Abstract: Long context language models now advertise windows of one million tokens, but two habits limit how much of that window is used. Attention heads with nothing useful to read still spend their budget on the first token, which is called the attention sink, and where a fact sits in the context changes whether the model finds it. Gated attention cut first token attention from 46.7 percent to 4.8 percent at NeurIPS 2025, and Kimi K3 pairs that idea with Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals behind a one million token window, eight times past the range where these diagnostics have been reported. This paper asks whether the fix survives that jump. We build SinkProbe, a suite that measures sink mass, massive activation, position resolved recall and the recency gap, and apply it to four small models that differ only in how they mix tokens and depth. Three results follow. The training objective produces the sink, not the architecture. Gating did not reproduce its published effect at our scale. Sink mass, activations and position bias moved independently. Code, data and the measurement protocol are released at https://github.com/sararizwan7/Attention-Mechanisms-in-1M-Context-Window

Tue 8 SeptComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Some language models look at a huge amount of text at once, but they often get stuck paying too much attention to the first word, which limits how well they understand the rest. The authors studied different ways to fix this problem and found that changing the model’s goal during training, rather than its design, causes this issue. Techniques that seemed to reduce this problem at smaller scales did not work at the largest scales. This means that the behavior depends more on how models learn than on how they are built.
Open 2609.08574v1

Stable training improves on-policy distillation in language models

TV-Regulated OPD: Direction Matters in On-Policy Distillation

Abstract: On-Policy Distillation (OPD) facilitates the transfer of knowledge from domain expert to student in the post-training phase of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, the supervision signals in mainstream OPD methods suffer from high variance and noise which is generally instable during training. In this work, we systematically investigated what really matters to the performance and the fundamental mechanisms behind the instability during training. We found that retaining only the sign of token-level advantages is sufficient to achieve the performance comparable to standard OPD. Meanwhile, smoother and bounded advantages can stabilize the training process without sacrificing its performance. These motivated us to shape the advantages using the Total Variation (TV) and propose a robust TV regulated On-Policy Distillation (TV-OPD) method. Benefiting from the bounded and diminished advantages, TV-OPD exhibits stable training dynamics and steady late-stage performance. We conducted comprehensive experiments and found that, across various settings, TV-OPD consistently achieved better performance and lower variance in the late-stage of training.

Tue 8 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
Training large language models can be unstable because of noisy feedback during learning. The authors found that just knowing whether parts are better or worse, not how much better, helps keep performance strong. They created a new method that smooths this feedback, making training steadier and results more reliable. This approach improves how expert knowledge is passed to smaller models after initial training.
Open 2609.08341v1

Kalman delta networks improve memory updates in language models

Kalman Delta Networks: Uncertainty-aware Associative Memory

Abstract: Linear attention is increasingly used in frontier language models for efficient long-context inference and constant-memory decoding. Its fixed-size recurrent memory, however, requires an online decision at each token: what to write and how strongly to overwrite existing associations before knowing which information future queries will require. Delta-rule models learn this strength from the current token embedding but do not track confidence in the memory estimate, preventing each write from adapting to accumulated evidence. To represent this uncertainty explicitly, we reformulate recurrent associative memory as a linear--Gaussian state-space model, for which the Kalman filter is the optimal recursive estimator, and introduce a new family of models, Kalman Delta Networks (KDNs). Within KDNs, the transition propagates both the memory state and its uncertainty, allowing the Kalman gain to weight each residual write by accumulated evidence and observation reliability. Under this formulation, Delta-style updates emerge as a special case that substitutes a token-wise isotropic surrogate for predictive covariance and omits covariance tracking. Exact tracking, however, entails a dense, state-dependent Riccati recursion that is poorly suited to GPU-parallel linear-attention scans. To address this issue, we introduce two scan-compatible KDN approximations. Diagonal KDN projects each one-step posterior onto the diagonal Gaussian family through online mean-field variational inference, whereas Isotropic KDN uses an isotropic approximation with a single uncertainty scalar per head. Their uncertainty recurrences are Mobius maps, enabling associative scans with logarithmic parallel depth. Across controlled pretraining at 750M and 1.3B parameters, KDN variants consistently improve perplexity and mean downstream accuracy over state-of-the-art linear-attention models.

Mon 7 SeptMachine LearningArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Language models need to remember information efficiently while reading long texts. Current methods update their memory with fixed rules that don't consider how confident they are about what they've remembered. The authors introduce Kalman Delta Networks, which keep track of both the memory and its uncertainty, allowing smarter updates that weigh new information based on reliability. This approach improves performance on language tasks compared to previous similar methods.
Open 2609.07816v1

Language model stability and memory horizons explained

Separating Stream Stability from Long-Term Recall in Language Models

Abstract: Methods for streaming language models are often discussed alongside long-context and memory systems, although they solve different problems. An attention sink can stabilize autoregressive generation over an indefinitely long stream while the model remains unable to use content that has left its recent-token cache. We argue that this distinction should be explicit in system claims and evaluation. We introduce three horizons: the stability horizon, over which predictive behavior remains well behaved; the access horizon, over which past content can still causally affect the output; and the utility horizon, over which a task retains acceptable performance. We show constructively that the stability horizon can be infinite while the access and utility horizons are finite. We then propose ThreeH, an evaluation contract that measures all three horizons under a common state and compute budget. Applying the framework to attention-sink streaming clarifies its strength, constant-memory, stable generation, without treating anchor tokens as semantic memory. The framework exposes roles for cache policies, recurrent state, retrieval, and external memory. Experiments on 128K-token streams, delayed binding recall, and delayed decisions show that attention sinks preserve local modeling but not content beyond the active cache; recurrent and retrieval state extend the semantic horizon.

Mon 7 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Language models that generate text over long streams can stay stable in their output even when they forget details from earlier parts. The authors point out that stability in generating text is different from remembering past content or maintaining task performance over time. They define three 'horizons' to measure these factors separately: how long the output stays stable, how far back the model can access content, and how long tasks perform well. Their tests show a model can be perfectly stable but still forget older information unless additional memory mechanisms are used.
Open 2609.07282v1

Line coupled language model speeds up token generation per step

Line-Coupled Language Model

Abstract: Autoregressive language models generate one token per decoding step, limiting the useful output of each forward pass. Although diffusion models, insertion-based decoding, and multi-token prediction enable parallel generation, they either incur additional training-time token traffic or struggle to predict strongly dependent future tokens. We introduce the Line-Coupled Language Model (LCLM), an autoregressive model that advances multiple text lines together by predicting the next token for every active line while coupling the lines through shared causal context. LCLM interleaves line tokens into a single causal sequence and uses line-staggered rotary positions, retaining the standard next-token objective and causal attention. Controlled experiments show that cross-line targets are substantially less dependent than consecutive same-line targets, supporting lines as parallel generation units. With 881M parameters, LCLM produces an average of 2.94 content tokens per forward pass with a validation cross-entropy loss of 2.44, compared with 1.00 token per forward pass and a loss of 2.39 for the vanilla autoregressive baseline. Most notably, even when LCLM generates 16 tokens per forward pass, its loss is only 0.09 higher than that of the vanilla autoregressive baseline (2.34 vs. 2.25).

Mon 7 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Generating text one word at a time makes language models slow because each step only creates one word. The authors introduce a new model called the Line-Coupled Language Model (LCLM) that predicts multiple next words across different lines at the same time, while still using information from all lines together. This lets the model produce almost three times as many words per step with only a small drop in accuracy. Their approach keeps the usual way of training and understanding text sequences but speeds up the process by cleverly arranging how lines of text are predicted together.
Open 2609.07129v1