nlp system developers

Abstract: Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models scale model capacity efficiently by activating only a small subset of experts for each input, while still requiring all parameters to be stored in memory, resulting in substantial memory overhead. Expert merging techniques have recently emerged as a promising compression paradigm that reduces this overhead by consolidating multiple experts into a smaller set. However, existing approaches have two key limitations: (i) direct convex interpolation in parameter space is not generally guaranteed to yield meaningful interpolation of expert functions; and (ii) estimating expert similarity or merging coefficients often relies on calibration data, introducing dependence on the calibration distribution. To address these limitations, we propose Spectrum-Aware Latent Expert Merging (SLEM), a calibration-free expert merging framework that occurs in a structured latent representation of expert weights using a VAE. SLEM groups experts within and across layers based on latent similarities and derives merging coefficients from expert weight spectra. It then performs geometry-aware latent interpolation and decodes the resulting representations into merged expert weights. Compared with existing expert merging methods, SLEM achieves comparable or better performance on general knowledge benchmarks and higher average performance on generation benchmarks involving mathematical reasoning and code generation.

Abstract: On-policy distillation (OPD) supervises student-generated trajectories with token-level teacher signals. Its sampled-token variant avoids the cost of full-vocabulary probabilities. Yet we find that training on fewer tokens can outperform full-token OPD, challenging the intuition that more supervision improves learning. This motivates selecting tokens by learning value. Existing disagreement-based criteria ignore probability scale: tokens assigned negligible probability by both models, termed low-low tokens, can receive large log-ratio rewards and hinder learning. We propose DIAL-OPD, a token-selection method that bridges log-probability and probability spaces by weighting reward magnitude with the logarithmic mean of teacher and student probabilities. A parameter beta controls this weighting, and the highest-scoring tokens are retained. Across 4 teacher-student pairs and 7 mathematical reasoning benchmarks, we compare DIAL-OPD with 9 baselines. Retaining only 40% of tokens, it outperforms Vanilla OPD and its full-token variants, with mean accuracy gains reaching 5.25 percentage points over Vanilla OPD, and doubles AIME25 Pass@16 from 13.33% to 26.67%. It also achieves up to an 18% relative improvement in mean accuracy over the strongest token-selection baseline at matched retention ratios. With a 4B teacher, DIAL-OPD surpasses the strongest full-token baseline using an 8B teacher at both student scales, showing that effective supervision allocation can outweigh teacher scaling. Further analysis shows that moderate beta balances suppressing low-low tokens against preserving useful disagreements. Token-level evidence reveals that DIAL-OPD filters high-reward tokens with limited reasoning value while preserving supervision critical to reasoning correctness.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as automatic judges, with validity typically assessed via alignment with human scores. However, aggregate agreement fails to reveal whether humans and LLMs find the same evaluation cases difficult. In this paper, we study this problem in summarization evaluation from a psychometric perspective. We fit Many-Facet Rasch Models separately to human and LLM ratings to decompose scores into latent summary quality, rater severity, dimension severity, and rating-scale thresholds. Building on this decomposition, we define residual hardness as a model-adjusted measure of judging difficulty and compare whether human and LLM judges share the same hardness structure. Across 17 open-weight LLM judges on SummEval, we find that moderate alignment in latent summary quality does not imply alignment in residual hardness. Human and LLM judges differ in which summary--dimension units remain difficult, and this mismatch is strongly dimension-dependent. Consistency shows a pronounced LLM-hard shift, whereas coherence shows a human-hard shift. We further show that human-easy but LLM-hard cases are partially predictable from observable source--summary properties. These findings suggest that aggregate human alignment reflects only part of LLM-as-a-judge reliability, while psychometric residual diagnostics support more informative judge evaluation and more targeted human--LLM collaboration.

Abstract: Direct On-Policy Distillation (Direct-OPD) transfers reinforcement-learning-induced policy improvements from a small model to a larger student by using the token-level log-ratio between post-RL and pre-RL checkpoints as dense supervision on the student's own rollouts. This transfer rewards the policy shift at every state, yet the log-ratio measures only relative change: it can stay fixed even as the probability mass that both checkpoints assign to the student's candidate tokens vanishes. Through an exact construction, we show that the Direct-OPD reward and its update can remain unchanged while the Jensen-Shannon divergence (JSD) and both KL directions between the checkpoints vanish with this mass, and we note that a small JSD bounds how much the teacher's behavior changed. Motivated by this analysis, we propose Selective Supervision for Direct-OPD (S$^2$D-OPD), which ranks student-sampled states by their teacher-reference JSD and masks Direct-OPD supervision at low-divergence states, retaining only the top 10% of states per response. Across two teacher pairs and four student models ranging from 1.7B to 8B parameters, S$^2$D-OPD improves held-out accuracy over dense Direct-OPD on AIME and HMMT benchmarks in seven of eight settings and matches it in the eighth, without extra forward passes. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/S2D-OPD-8868.

Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit hallucinations, presenting a major barrier to reliability in complex reasoning tasks. While traditional detection methods rely on output-based confidence metrics, these logits are often miscalibrated by modern alignment techniques. In this paper, we investigate the temporal volatility of internal attention mechanisms as an alternative diagnostic signal for hallucination that does not depend on output calibration. By introducing an unsupervised metric for attention dispersion, we show that epistemic uncertainty leaves a measurable trace within intermediate layers, where spikes in attention entropy are associated with reasoning breakdowns. We evaluate our approach on mathematical reasoning benchmarks (GSM8K and MATH-500) using the Qwen2.5 model family (1.5B and 3B parameters), finding statistically significant AUC improvements of up to +0.076 over output-based baselines across all tested conditions. These findings suggest that attention dispersion is a promising complement to traditional hallucination detection methods, requiring further investigation across broader model families and task domains.