Daily Papers

We present GRAPE (Group RepresentAtional Position Encoding), a unified framework for positional encoding based on group actions. GRAPE brings together two families of mechanisms: (i) multiplicative rotations (Multiplicative GRAPE) in SO(d) and (ii) additive logit biases (Additive GRAPE) arising from unipotent actions in the general linear group GL. In Multiplicative GRAPE, a position n in Z (or t in R) acts as G(n)=exp(n,ω,L) with a rank-2 skew generator L in R^{d times d}, yielding a relative, compositional, norm-preserving map with a closed-form matrix exponential. RoPE is recovered exactly when the d/2 planes are the canonical coordinate pairs with log-uniform spectrum. Learned commuting subspaces and compact non-commuting mixtures strictly extend this geometry to capture cross-subspace feature coupling at O(d) and O(r d) cost per head, respectively. In Additive GRAPE, additive logits arise as rank-1 (or low-rank) unipotent actions, recovering ALiBi and the Forgetting Transformer (FoX) as exact special cases while preserving an exact relative law and streaming cacheability. Altogether, GRAPE supplies a principled design space for positional geometry in long-context models, subsuming RoPE and ALiBi as special cases. Project Page: https://github.com/model-architectures/GRAPE.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive performance in diverse applications, yet they face significant drawbacks, including high inference latency, expensive training cost, and generation of hallucination. Collaborative decoding between large and small language models (SLMs) offers a novel approach to address these challenges. Inspired by dual-process cognitive theory, we integrate these methods into a unified framework termed Fast and Slow Generating (FS-GEN). This paper explores several techniques within the FS-GEN framework, including speculative decoding, contrastive decoding, and emulator or proxy fine-tuning. We provide a comprehensive analysis of these methodologies, offering insights into their similarities and differences under this framework. Our study delves into the differential knowledge capabilities of LLMs versus SLMs through the FS-GEN lens, revealing that fewer than 20% of collaborative interactions are required across various methods. These interactions adhere to a scaling law relative to the parameter ratios, thereby facilitating predictable collaboration. Furthermore, we investigate the specific positions where collaboration is most effective from an uncertainty perspective, yielding novel insights that could refine FS-GEN methods. Our findings reveal that the essential difference between models of different sizes lies in the uncertainty of the next token prediction, where interventions by larger models are most needed to assist the smaller ones. Code for Reproduction: https://github.com/TsinghuaC3I/FS-GEN

We present the first systematic investigation of supervised scaling laws outside of an ImageNet-like context - on images of galaxies. We use 840k galaxy images and over 100M annotations by Galaxy Zoo volunteers, comparable in scale to Imagenet-1K. We find that adding annotated galaxy images provides a power law improvement in performance across all architectures and all tasks, while adding trainable parameters is effective only for some (typically more subjectively challenging) tasks. We then compare the downstream performance of finetuned models pretrained on either ImageNet-12k alone vs. additionally pretrained on our galaxy images. We achieve an average relative error rate reduction of 31% across 5 downstream tasks of scientific interest. Our finetuned models are more label-efficient and, unlike their ImageNet-12k-pretrained equivalents, often achieve linear transfer performance equal to that of end-to-end finetuning. We find relatively modest additional downstream benefits from scaling model size, implying that scaling alone is not sufficient to address our domain gap, and suggest that practitioners with qualitatively different images might benefit more from in-domain adaption followed by targeted downstream labelling.

We consider the solvable neural scaling model with three parameters: data complexity, target complexity, and model-parameter-count. We use this neural scaling model to derive new predictions about the compute-limited, infinite-data scaling law regime. To train the neural scaling model, we run one-pass stochastic gradient descent on a mean-squared loss. We derive a representation of the loss curves which holds over all iteration counts and improves in accuracy as the model parameter count grows. We then analyze the compute-optimal model-parameter-count, and identify 4 phases (+3 subphases) in the data-complexity/target-complexity phase-plane. The phase boundaries are determined by the relative importance of model capacity, optimizer noise, and embedding of the features. We furthermore derive, with mathematical proof and extensive numerical evidence, the scaling-law exponents in all of these phases, in particular computing the optimal model-parameter-count as a function of floating point operation budget.

The Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems' performance on Thai legal question answering is still limited, especially for questions requiring extensive, complex legal reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce an approach aligning LLMs toward improved law citation accuracy and better response quality using Group-Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). Our approach leverages BGE-M3 embeddings as a cost-efficient semantic-similarity reward, significantly reducing computational expenses up to 2.5x compared to large language model judges. Experiments on the NitiBench benchmark demonstrate substantial improvements: GRPO achieves up to 90% citation-F1 gains from the base model and a 31% increase in joint quality metrics over instruction tuning. Crucially, our method shows enhanced robustness on complex legal reasoning tasks compared to instruction tuning, providing an effective and resource-efficient solution for enhancing Thai legal LLMs.

Annotation and classification of legal text are central components of empirical legal research. Traditionally, these tasks are often delegated to trained research assistants. Motivated by the advances in language modeling, empirical legal scholars are increasingly turning to prompting commercial models, hoping that it will alleviate the significant cost of human annotation. Despite growing use, our understanding of how to best utilize large language models for legal tasks remains limited. We conduct a comprehensive study of 260 legal text classification tasks, nearly all new to the machine learning community. Starting from GPT-4 as a baseline, we show that it has non-trivial but highly varied zero-shot accuracy, often exhibiting performance that may be insufficient for legal work. We then demonstrate that a lightly fine-tuned Llama 3 model vastly outperforms GPT-4 on almost all tasks, typically by double-digit percentage points. We find that larger models respond better to fine-tuning than smaller models. A few tens to hundreds of examples suffice to achieve high classification accuracy. Notably, we can fine-tune a single model on all 260 tasks simultaneously at a small loss in accuracy relative to having a separate model for each task. Our work points to a viable alternative to the predominant practice of prompting commercial models. For concrete legal tasks with some available labeled data, researchers are better off using a fine-tuned open-source model.

Improvements in language model capabilities are often attributed to increasing model size or training data, but in some cases smaller models trained on curated data or with different architectural decisions can outperform larger ones trained on more tokens. What accounts for this? To quantify the impact of these design choices, we meta-analyze 92 open-source pretrained models across a wide array of scales, including state-of-the-art open-weights models as well as less performant models and those with less conventional design decisions. We find that by incorporating features besides model size and number of training tokens, we can achieve a relative 3-28% increase in ability to predict downstream performance compared with using scale alone. Analysis of model design decisions reveal insights into data composition, such as the trade-off between language and code tasks at 15-25\% code, as well as the better performance of some architectural decisions such as choosing rotary over learned embeddings. Broadly, our framework lays a foundation for more systematic investigation of how model development choices shape final capabilities.

We propose STRuCT-LLM, a unified framework for training large language models (LLMs) to perform structured reasoning over both relational and graph-structured data. Our approach jointly optimizes Text-to-SQL and Text-to-Cypher tasks using reinforcement learning (RL) combined with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) supervision. To support fine-grained optimization in graph-based parsing, we introduce a topology-aware reward function based on graph edit distance. Unlike prior work that treats relational and graph formalisms in isolation, STRuCT-LLM leverages shared abstractions between SQL and Cypher to induce cross-formalism transfer, enabling SQL training to improve Cypher performance and vice versa - even without shared schemas. Our largest model (QwQ-32B) achieves substantial relative improvements across tasks: on semantic parsing, Spider improves by 13.5\% and Text2Cypher by 73.1\%. The model also demonstrates strong zero-shot generalization, improving performance on downstream tabular QA (TableBench: 8.5\%) and knowledge graph QA (CR-LT-KGQA: 1.7\%) without any QA-specific supervision. These results demonstrate both the effectiveness of executable queries as scaffolds for structured reasoning and the synergistic benefits of jointly training on SQL and Cypher (code available at https://github.com/bouv/STRuCT-LLM).

This paper develops a novel rating-based reinforcement learning approach that uses human ratings to obtain human guidance in reinforcement learning. Different from the existing preference-based and ranking-based reinforcement learning paradigms, based on human relative preferences over sample pairs, the proposed rating-based reinforcement learning approach is based on human evaluation of individual trajectories without relative comparisons between sample pairs. The rating-based reinforcement learning approach builds on a new prediction model for human ratings and a novel multi-class loss function. We conduct several experimental studies based on synthetic ratings and real human ratings to evaluate the effectiveness and benefits of the new rating-based reinforcement learning approach.

Amid mounting concern about the reliability and credibility of machine learning research, we present a principled framework for making robust and generalizable claims: the multiverse analysis. Our framework builds upon the multiverse analysis (Steegen et al., 2016) introduced in response to psychology's own reproducibility crisis. To efficiently explore high-dimensional and often continuous ML search spaces, we model the multiverse with a Gaussian Process surrogate and apply Bayesian experimental design. Our framework is designed to facilitate drawing robust scientific conclusions about model performance, and thus our approach focuses on exploration rather than conventional optimization. In the first of two case studies, we investigate disputed claims about the relative merit of adaptive optimizers. Second, we synthesize conflicting research on the effect of learning rate on the large batch training generalization gap. For the machine learning community, the multiverse analysis is a simple and effective technique for identifying robust claims, for increasing transparency, and a step toward improved reproducibility.

Embodied capabilities refer to a suite of fundamental abilities for an agent to perceive, comprehend, and interact with the physical world. While multimodal large language models (MLLMs) show promise as embodied agents, a thorough and systematic evaluation of their embodied capabilities remains underexplored, as existing benchmarks primarily focus on specific domains such as planning or spatial understanding. To bridge this gap, we introduce BEAR, a comprehensive and fine-grained benchmark that evaluates MLLMs on atomic embodied capabilities. BEAR comprises 4,469 interleaved image-video-text entries across 14 domains in 6 categories, including tasks from low-level pointing, trajectory understanding, spatial reasoning, to high-level planning. Extensive evaluation results of 20 representative MLLMs reveal their persistent limitations across all domains of embodied capabilities. To tackle the shortfall, we propose BEAR-Agent, a multimodal conversable agent that integrates pretrained vision models to strengthen MLLM perception, 3D understanding, and planning capabilities. It substantially enhances MLLM performance across diverse embodied capabilities on BEAR, yielding a 9.12% absolute gain and a relative improvement of 17.5% on GPT-5. Furthermore, our experiments indicate that improving MLLM embodied capabilities can benefit embodied tasks in simulated environments. Project website: https://bear-official66.github.io/

We investigate the rate at which algorithms for pre-training language models have improved since the advent of deep learning. Using a dataset of over 200 language model evaluations on Wikitext and Penn Treebank spanning 2012-2023, we find that the compute required to reach a set performance threshold has halved approximately every 8 months, with a 95% confidence interval of around 5 to 14 months, substantially faster than hardware gains per Moore's Law. We estimate augmented scaling laws, which enable us to quantify algorithmic progress and determine the relative contributions of scaling models versus innovations in training algorithms. Despite the rapid pace of algorithmic progress and the development of new architectures such as the transformer, our analysis reveals that the increase in compute made an even larger contribution to overall performance improvements over this time period. Though limited by noisy benchmark data, our analysis quantifies the rapid progress in language modeling, shedding light on the relative contributions from compute and algorithms.

Legal practice has witnessed a sharp rise in products incorporating artificial intelligence (AI). Such tools are designed to assist with a wide range of core legal tasks, from search and summarization of caselaw to document drafting. But the large language models used in these tools are prone to "hallucinate," or make up false information, making their use risky in high-stakes domains. Recently, certain legal research providers have touted methods such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as "eliminating" (Casetext, 2023) or "avoid[ing]" hallucinations (Thomson Reuters, 2023), or guaranteeing "hallucination-free" legal citations (LexisNexis, 2023). Because of the closed nature of these systems, systematically assessing these claims is challenging. In this article, we design and report on the first preregistered empirical evaluation of AI-driven legal research tools. We demonstrate that the providers' claims are overstated. While hallucinations are reduced relative to general-purpose chatbots (GPT-4), we find that the AI research tools made by LexisNexis (Lexis+ AI) and Thomson Reuters (Westlaw AI-Assisted Research and Ask Practical Law AI) each hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time. We also document substantial differences between systems in responsiveness and accuracy. Our article makes four key contributions. It is the first to assess and report the performance of RAG-based proprietary legal AI tools. Second, it introduces a comprehensive, preregistered dataset for identifying and understanding vulnerabilities in these systems. Third, it proposes a clear typology for differentiating between hallucinations and accurate legal responses. Last, it provides evidence to inform the responsibilities of legal professionals in supervising and verifying AI outputs, which remains a central open question for the responsible integration of AI into law.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) must resolve conflicts when different modalities provide contradictory information, a process we term modality following. Prior work measured this behavior only with coarse dataset-level statistics, overlooking the influence of model's confidence in unimodal reasoning. In this paper, we introduce a new framework that decomposes modality following into two fundamental factors: relative reasoning uncertainty (the case-specific confidence gap between unimodal predictions) and inherent modality preference( a model's stable bias when uncertainties are balanced). To validate this framework, we construct a controllable dataset that systematically varies the reasoning difficulty of visual and textual inputs. Using entropy as a fine-grained uncertainty metric, we uncover a universal law: the probability of following a modality decreases monotonically as its relative uncertainty increases. At the relative difficulty level where the model tends to follow both modalities with comparable probability what we call the balance point, a practical indicator of the model's inherent preference. Unlike traditional macro-level ratios, this measure offers a more principled and less confounded way to characterize modality bias, disentangling it from unimodal capabilities and dataset artifacts. Further, by probing layer-wise predictions, we reveal the internal mechanism of oscillation: in ambiguous regions near the balance point, models vacillate between modalities across layers, explaining externally observed indecision. Together, these findings establish relative uncertainty and inherent preference as the two governing principles of modality following, offering both a quantitative framework and mechanistic insight into how MLLMs resolve conflicting information.