YouZum

Uncategorized

AI, Committee, ข่าว, Uncategorized

SpecDiff-2: Scaling Diffusion Drafter Alignment For Faster Speculative Decoding

arXiv:2511.00606v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Speculative decoding has become the standard approach for accelerating Large Language Model (LLM) inference. It exploits a lossless draft-then-verify procedure to circumvent the latency of autoregressive decoding, achieving impressive speed-ups. Yet, current speculative decoding approaches remain limited by two fundamental bottlenecks: (1) the autoregressive dependency during drafting which limits parallelism, and (2) frequent rejections of draft tokens caused by misalignment between the draft and verify models. This paper proposes SpecDiff-2, a novel framework to jointly address these two bottlenecks. It leverages discrete diffusion as a non-autoregressive drafter to address bottleneck (1) and develops novel techniques to calibrate discrete diffusion drafters with autoregressive verifiers, addressing bottleneck (2). Experimental results across a comprehensive benchmark suite show that SpecDiff-2 achieves a new state-of-the-art across reasoning, coding, and mathematical benchmarks, improving tokens-per-second by up to an average of +55% over previous baselines and obtaining up to 5.5x average speed-up over standard decoding, without any loss of accuracy.

SpecDiff-2: Scaling Diffusion Drafter Alignment For Faster Speculative Decoding Read Post »

AI, Committee, ข่าว, Uncategorized

DEER: Disentangled Mixture of Experts with Instance-Adaptive Routing for Generalizable Machine-Generated Text Detection

arXiv:2511.01192v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Detecting machine-generated text (MGT) has emerged as a critical challenge, driven by the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) capable of producing highly realistic, human-like content. However, the performance of current approaches often degrades significantly under domain shift. To address this challenge, we propose a novel framework designed to capture both domain-specific and domain-general MGT patterns through a two-stage Disentangled mixturE-of-ExpeRts (DEER) architecture. First, we introduce a disentangled mixture-of-experts module, in which domain-specific experts learn fine-grained, domain-local distinctions between human and machine-generated text, while shared experts extract transferable, cross-domain features. Second, to mitigate the practical limitation of unavailable domain labels during inference, we design a reinforcement learning-based routing mechanism that dynamically selects the appropriate experts for each input instance, effectively bridging the train-inference gap caused by domain uncertainty. Extensive experiments on five in-domain and five out-of-domain benchmark datasets demonstrate that DEER consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving average F1-score improvements of 1.39% and 5.32% on in-domain and out-of-domain datasets respectively, along with accuracy gains of 1.35% and 3.61% respectively. Ablation studies confirm the critical contributions of both disentangled expert specialization and adaptive routing to model performance.

DEER: Disentangled Mixture of Experts with Instance-Adaptive Routing for Generalizable Machine-Generated Text Detection Read Post »

AI, Committee, ข่าว, Uncategorized

Hebrew Diacritics Restoration using Visual Representation

arXiv:2510.26521v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Diacritics restoration in Hebrew is a fundamental task for ensuring accurate word pronunciation and disambiguating textual meaning. Despite the language’s high degree of ambiguity when unvocalized, recent machine learning approaches have significantly advanced performance on this task. In this work, we present DIVRIT, a novel system for Hebrew diacritization that frames the task as a zero-shot classification problem. Our approach operates at the word level, selecting the most appropriate diacritization pattern for each undiacritized word from a dynamically generated candidate set, conditioned on the surrounding textual context. A key innovation of DIVRIT is its use of a Hebrew Visual Language Model, which processes undiacritized text as an image, allowing diacritic information to be embedded directly within the input’s vector representation. Through a comprehensive evaluation across various configurations, we demonstrate that the system effectively performs diacritization without relying on complex, explicit linguistic analysis. Notably, in an “oracle” setting where the correct diacritized form is guaranteed to be among the provided candidates, DIVRIT achieves a high level of accuracy. Furthermore, strategic architectural enhancements and optimized training methodologies yield significant improvements in the system’s overall generalization capabilities. These findings highlight the promising potential of visual representations for accurate and automated Hebrew diacritization.

Hebrew Diacritics Restoration using Visual Representation Read Post »

AI, Committee, ข่าว, Uncategorized

SIGMA: Search-Augmented On-Demand Knowledge Integration for Agentic Mathematical Reasoning

arXiv:2510.27568v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Solving mathematical reasoning problems requires not only accurate access to relevant knowledge but also careful, multi-step thinking. However, current retrieval-augmented models often rely on a single perspective, follow inflexible search strategies, and struggle to effectively combine information from multiple sources. We introduce SIGMA (Search-Augmented On-Demand Knowledge Integration for AGentic Mathematical reAsoning), a unified framework that orchestrates specialized agents to independently reason, perform targeted searches, and synthesize findings through a moderator mechanism. Each agent generates hypothetical passages to optimize retrieval for its analytic perspective, ensuring knowledge integration is both context-sensitive and computation-efficient. When evaluated on challenging benchmarks such as MATH500, AIME, and PhD-level science QA GPQA, SIGMA consistently outperforms both open- and closed-source systems, achieving an absolute performance improvement of 7.4%. Our results demonstrate that multi-agent, on-demand knowledge integration significantly enhances both reasoning accuracy and efficiency, offering a scalable approach for complex, knowledge-intensive problem-solving. We will release the code upon publication.

SIGMA: Search-Augmented On-Demand Knowledge Integration for Agentic Mathematical Reasoning Read Post »

AI, Committee, ข่าว, Uncategorized

Reinforcing the Diffusion Chain of Lateral Thought with Diffusion Language Models

arXiv:2505.10446v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We introduce the Diffusion Chain of Lateral Thought (DCoLT), a reasoning framework for diffusion language models. DCoLT treats each intermediate step in the reverse diffusion process as a latent “thinking” action and optimizes the entire reasoning trajectory to maximize the reward on the correctness of the final answer with outcome-based Reinforcement Learning (RL). Unlike traditional Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods that follow a causal, linear thinking process, DCoLT allows bidirectional, non-linear reasoning with no strict rule on grammatical correctness amid its intermediate steps of thought. We implement DCoLT on two representative Diffusion Language Models (DLMs). First, we choose SEDD as a representative continuous-time discrete diffusion model, where its concrete score derives a probabilistic policy to maximize the RL reward over the entire sequence of intermediate diffusion steps. We further consider the discrete-time masked diffusion language model — LLaDA, and find that the order to predict and unmask tokens plays an essential role to optimize its RL action resulting from the ranking-based Unmasking Policy Module (UPM) defined by the Plackett-Luce model. Experiments on both math and code generation tasks show that using only public data and 16 H800 GPUs, DCoLT-reinforced DLMs outperform other DLMs trained by SFT or RL or even both. Notably, DCoLT-reinforced LLaDA boosts its reasoning accuracy by +9.8%, +5.7%, +11.4%, +19.5% on GSM8K, MATH, MBPP, and HumanEval.

Reinforcing the Diffusion Chain of Lateral Thought with Diffusion Language Models Read Post »

AI, Committee, ข่าว, Uncategorized

Diffuse Thinking: Exploring Diffusion Language Models as Efficient Thought Proposers for Reasoning

arXiv:2510.27469v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have witnessed remarkable advancements, with the test-time scaling law consistently enhancing the reasoning capabilities. Through systematic evaluation and exploration of a diverse spectrum of intermediate thoughts, LLMs demonstrate the potential to generate deliberate reasoning steps, thereby substantially enhancing reasoning accuracy. However, LLMs’ autoregressive generation paradigm results in reasoning performance scaling sub-optimally with test-time computation, often requiring excessive computational overhead to propose thoughts while yielding only marginal performance gains. In contrast, diffusion language models (DLMs) can efficiently produce diverse samples through parallel denoising in a single forward pass, inspiring us to leverage them for proposing intermediate thoughts, thereby alleviating the computational burden associated with autoregressive generation while maintaining quality. In this work, we propose an efficient collaborative reasoning framework, leveraging DLMs to generate candidate thoughts and LLMs to evaluate their quality. Experiments across diverse benchmarks demonstrate that our framework achieves strong performance in complex reasoning tasks, offering a promising direction for future research. Our code is open-source at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Diffuse-Thinking-EC60.

Diffuse Thinking: Exploring Diffusion Language Models as Efficient Thought Proposers for Reasoning Read Post »

AI, Committee, ข่าว, Uncategorized

Accelerating Diffusion LLMs via Adaptive Parallel Decoding

arXiv:2506.00413v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The generation speed of LLMs are bottlenecked by autoregressive decoding, where tokens are predicted sequentially one by one. Alternatively, diffusion large language models (dLLMs) theoretically allow for parallel token generation, but in practice struggle to achieve the speed of autoregressive models without significantly sacrificing quality. We therefore introduce adaptive parallel decoding (APD), a novel method that dynamically adjusts the number of tokens sampled in parallel. We achieve this by defining a multiplicative mixture between the dLLM marginal probabilities and the joint probability of sequences under a small auxiliary autoregressive model. This inverts the standard setup of speculative decoding, where the goal is to sample from a large autoregressive verifier by drafting from a smaller model. We further optimize APD by enabling KV caching and limiting the size of the masked input. Altogether, our method puts forward three tunable parameters to flexibly tradeoff throughput and quality. We show that APD provides markedly higher throughput with minimal quality degradations on downstream benchmarks.

Accelerating Diffusion LLMs via Adaptive Parallel Decoding Read Post »

AI, Committee, ข่าว, Uncategorized

Large reasoning models almost certainly can think

Recently, there has been a lot of hullabaloo about the idea that large reasoning models (LRM) are unable to think. This is mostly due to a research article published by Apple, “The Illusion of Thinking” Apple argues that LRMs must not be able to think; instead, they just perform pattern-matching. The evidence they provided is that LRMs with chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning are unable to carry on the calculation using a predefined algorithm as the problem grows. This is a fundamentally flawed argument. If you ask a human who already knows the algorithm for solving the Tower-of-Hanoi problem to solve a Tower-of-Hanoi problem with twenty discs, for instance, he or she would almost certainly fail to do so. By that logic, we must conclude that humans cannot think either. However, this argument only points to the idea that there is no evidence that LRMs cannot think. This alone certainly does not mean that LRMs can think — just that we cannot be sure they don’t. In this article, I will make a bolder claim: LRMs almost certainly can think. I say ‘almost’ because there is always a chance that further research would surprise us. But I think my argument is pretty conclusive. What is thinking? Before we try to understand if LRMs can think, we need to define what we mean by thinking. But first, we have to make sure that humans can think per the definition. We will only consider thinking in relation to problem solving, which is the matter of contention. 1. Problem representation (frontal and parietal lobes) When you think about a problem, the process engages your prefrontal cortex. This region is responsible for working memory, attention and executive functions — capacities that let you hold the problem in mind, break it into sub-components and set goals. Your parietal cortex helps encode symbolic structure for math or puzzle problems. 2. Mental simulation (morking Memory and inner speech) This has two components: One is an auditory loop that lets you talk to yourself — very similar to CoT generation. The other is visual imagery, which allows you to manipulate objects visually. Geometry was so important for navigating the world that we developed specialized capabilities for it. The auditory part is linked to Broca’s area and the auditory cortex, both reused from language centers. The visual cortex and parietal areas primarily control the visual component. 3. Pattern matching and retrieval (Hippocampus and Temporal Lobes) These actions depend on past experiences and stored knowledge from long-term memory: The hippocampus helps retrieve related memories and facts. The temporal Lobe brings in semantic knowledge — meanings, rules, categories. This is similar to how neural networks depend on their training to process the task. 4. Monitoring and evaluation (Anterior Cingulate Cortex) Our anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) monitors for errors, conflicts or impasses — it’s where you notice contradictions or dead ends. This process is essentially based on pattern matching from prior experience. 5. Insight or reframing (default mode network and right hemisphere) When you’re stuck, your brain might shift into default mode — a more relaxed, internally-directed network. This is when you step back, let go of the current thread and sometimes ‘suddenly’ see a new angle (the classic “aha!” moment). This is similar to how DeepSeek-R1 was trained for CoT reasoning without having CoT examples in its training data. Remember, the brain continuously learns as it processes data and solves problems. In contrast, LRMs aren’t allowed to change based on real-world feedback during prediction or generation. But with DeepSeek-R1’s CoT training, learning did happen as it attempted to solve the problems — essentially updating while reasoning. Similarities betweem CoT reasoning and biological thinking LRM does not have all of the faculties mentioned above. For example, an LRM is very unlikely to do too much visual reasoning in its circuit, although a little may happen. But it certainly does not generate intermediate images in the CoT generation. Most humans can make spatial models in their heads to solve problems. Does this mean we can conclude that LRMs cannot think? I would disagree. Some humans also find it difficult to form spatial models of the concepts they think about. This condition is called aphantasia. People with this condition can think just fine. In fact, they go about life as if they don’t lack any ability at all. Many of them are actually great at symbolic reasoning and quite good at math — often enough to compensate for their lack of visual reasoning. We might expect our neural network models also to be able to circumvent this limitation. If we take a more abstract view of the human thought process described earlier, we can see mainly the following things involved: 1.  Pattern-matching is used for recalling learned experience, problem representation and monitoring and evaluating chains of thought. 2.  Working memory is to store all the intermediate steps. 3.  Backtracking search concludes that the CoT is not going anywhere and backtracks to some reasonable point. Pattern-matching in an LRM comes from its training. The whole point of training is to learn both knowledge of the world and the patterns to process that knowledge effectively. Since an LRM is a layered network, the entire working memory needs to fit within one layer. The weights store the knowledge of the world and the patterns to follow, while processing happens between layers using the learned patterns stored as model parameters. Note that even in CoT, the entire text — including the input, CoT and part of the output already generated — must fit into each layer. Working memory is just one layer (in the case of the attention mechanism, this includes the KV-cache). CoT is, in fact, very similar to what we do when we are talking to ourselves (which is almost always). We nearly always verbalize our thoughts, and so does a CoT reasoner. There is also good evidence that CoT reasoner can take backtracking steps when a certain line of reasoning seems futile. In fact, this is

Large reasoning models almost certainly can think Read Post »

AI, Committee, ข่าว, Uncategorized

Anthropic’s New Research Shows Claude can Detect Injected Concepts, but only in Controlled Layers

How do you tell whether a model is actually noticing its own internal state instead of just repeating what training data said about thinking? In a latest Anthropic’s research study ‘Emergent Introspective Awareness in Large Language Models‘ asks whether current Claude models can do more than talk about their abilities, it asks whether they can notice real changes inside their network. To remove guesswork, the research team does not test on text alone, they directly edit the model’s internal activations and then ask the model what happened. This lets them tell apart genuine introspection from fluent self description. Method, concept injection as activation steering The core method is concept injection, described in the Transformer Circuits write up as an application of activation steering. The researchers first capture an activation pattern that corresponds to a concept, for example an all caps style or a concrete noun, then they add that vector into the activations of a later layer while the model is answering. If the model then says, there is an injected thought that matches X, that answer is causally grounded in the current state, not in prior internet text. Anthropic research team reports that this works best in later layers and with tuned strength. https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/introspection/index.html Main result, about 20 percent success with zero false positives in controls Claude Opus 4 and Claude Opus 4.1 show the clearest effect. When the injection is done in the correct layer band and with the right scale, the models correctly report the injected concept in about 20 percent of trials. On control runs with no injection, production models do not falsely claim to detect an injected thought over 100 runs, which makes the 20 percent signal meaningful. Separating internal concepts from user text A natural objection is that the model could be importing the injected word into the text channel. Anthropic researchers tests this. The model receives a normal sentence, the researchers inject an unrelated concept such as bread on the same tokens, and then they ask the model to name the concept and to repeat the sentence. The stronger Claude models can do both, they keep the user text intact and they name the injected thought, which shows that internal concept state can be reported separately from the visible input stream. For agent style systems, this is the interesting part, because it shows that a model can talk about the extra state that tool calls or agents may depend on. Prefill, using introspection to tell what was intended Another experiment targets an evaluation problem. Anthropic prefilled the assistant message with content the model did not plan. By default Claude says that the output was not intended. When the researchers retroactively inject the matching concept into earlier activations, the model now accepts the prefilled output as its own and can justify it. This shows that the model is consulting an internal record of its previous state to decide authorship, not only the final text. That is a concrete use of introspection. Key Takeaways Concept injection gives causal evidence of introspection: Anthropic shows that if you take a known activation pattern, inject it into Claude’s hidden layers, and then ask the model what is happening, advanced Claude variants can sometimes name the injected concept. This separates real introspection from fluent roleplay. Best models succeed only in a narrow regime: Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 detect injected concepts only when the vector is added in the right layer band and with tuned strength, and the reported success rate is around the same scale Anthropic stated, while production runs show 0 false positives in controls, so the signal is real but small. Models can keep text and internal ‘thoughts’ separate: In experiments where an unrelated concept is injected on top of normal input text, the model can both repeat the user sentence and report the injected concept, which means the internal concept stream is not just leaking into the text channel. Introspection supports authorship checks: When Anthropic prefilled outputs that the model did not intend, the model disavowed them, but if the matching concept was retroactively injected, the model accepted the output as its own. This shows the model can consult past activations to decide whether it meant to say something. This is a measurement tool, not a consciousness claim: The research team frame the work as functional, limited introspective awareness that could feed future transparency and safety evaluations, including ones about evaluation awareness, but they do not claim general self awareness or stable access to all internal features. Editorial Comments Anthropic’s ‘Emergent Introspective Awareness in LLMs‘ research is a useful measurement advance, not a grand metaphysical claim. The setup is clean, inject a known concept into hidden activations using activation steering, then query the model for a grounded self report. Claude variants sometimes detect and name the injected concept, and they can keep injected ‘thoughts’ distinct from input text, which is operationally relevant for agent debugging and audit trails. The research team also shows limited intentional control of internal states. Constraints remain strong, effects are narrow, and reliability is modest, so downstream use should be evaluative, not safety critical. Check out the Paper and Technical details. Feel free to check out our GitHub Page for Tutorials, Codes and Notebooks. Also, feel free to follow us on Twitter and don’t forget to join our 100k+ ML SubReddit and Subscribe to our Newsletter. Wait! are you on telegram? now you can join us on telegram as well. The post Anthropic’s New Research Shows Claude can Detect Injected Concepts, but only in Controlled Layers appeared first on MarkTechPost.

Anthropic’s New Research Shows Claude can Detect Injected Concepts, but only in Controlled Layers Read Post »

AI, Committee, ข่าว, Uncategorized

Here’s the latest company planning for gene-edited babies

A West Coast biotech entrepreneur says he’s secured $30 million to form a public-benefit company to study how to safely create genetically edited babies, marking the largest known investment into the taboo technology.   The new company, called Preventive, is being formed to research so-called “heritable genome editing,” in which the DNA of embryos would be modified by correcting harmful mutations or installing beneficial genes. The goal would be to prevent disease. Preventive was founded by the gene-editing scientist Lucas Harrington, who described his plans yesterday in a blog post announcing the venture. Preventive, he said, will not rush to try out the technique but instead will dedicate itself “to rigorously researching whether heritable genome editing can be done safely and responsibly.” Creating genetically edited humans remains controversial, and the first scientist to do it, in China, was imprisoned for three years. The procedure remains illegal in many countries, including the US, and doubts surround its usefulness as a form of medicine. Still, as gene-editing technology races forward, the temptation to shape the future of the species may prove irresistible, particularly to entrepreneurs keen to put their stamp on the human condition. In theory, even small genetic tweaks could create people who never get heart disease or Alzheimer’s, and who would pass those traits on to their own offspring. According to Harrington, if the technique proves safe, it “could become one of the most important health technologies of our time.” He has estimated that editing an embryo would cost only about $5,000 and believes regulations could change in the future.  Preventive is the third US startup this year to say it is pursuing technology to produce gene-edited babies. The first, Bootstrap Bio, based in California, is reportedly seeking seed funding and has an interest in enhancing intelligence. Another, Manhattan Genomics, is also in the formation stage but has not announced funding yet. As of now, none of these companies have significant staff or facilities, and they largely lack any credibility among mainstream gene-editing scientists. Reached by email, Fyodor Urnov, an expert in gene editing at the University of California, Berkeley, where Harrington studied, said he believes such ventures should not move forward. Urnov has been a pointed critic of the concept of heritable genome editing, calling it dangerous, misguided, and a distraction from the real benefits of gene editing to treat adults and children.  In his email, Urnov said the launch of still another venture into the area made him want to “howl with pain.”   Harrinton’s venture was incorporated in Delaware in May 2025,under the name Preventive Medicine PBC. As a public-benefit corporation, it is organized to put its public mission above profits. “If our research shows [heritable genome editing] cannot be done safely, that conclusion is equally valuable to the scientific community and society,” Harrington wrote in his post. Harrington is a cofounder of Mammoth Biosciences, a gene-editing company pursuing drugs for adults, and remains a board member there. In recent months, Preventive has sought endorsements from leading figures in genome editing, but according to its post, it had secured only one—from Paula Amato, a fertility doctor at Oregon Health Sciences University, who said she had agreed to act as an advisor to the company. Amato is a member of a US team that has researched embryo editing in the country since 2017, and she has promoted the technology as a way to increase IVF success. That could be the case if editing could correct abnormal embryos, making more available for use in trying to create a pregnancy. It remains unclear where Preventive’s funding is coming from. Harrington said the $30 million was gathered from “private funders who share our commitment to pursuing this research responsibly.” But he declined to identify those investors other than SciFounders, a venture firm he runs with his personal and business partner Matt Krisiloff, the CEO of the biotech company Conception, which aims to create human eggs from stem cells. That’s yet another technology that could change reproduction, if it works. Krisiloff is listed as a member of Preventive’s founding team. The idea of edited babies has received growing attention from figures in the cryptocurrency business. These include Brian Armstrong, the billionaire founder of Coinbase, who has held a series of off-the-record dinners to discuss the technology (which Harrington attended). Armstrong previously argued that the “time is right” for a startup venture in the area. Will Harborne, a crypto entrepreneur and partner at LongGame Ventures, says he’s “thrilled” to see Preventive launch. If the technology proves safe, he argues, “widespread adoption is inevitable,” calling its use a “societal obligation.” Harborne’s fund has invested in Herasight, a company that uses genetic tests to rank IVF embryos for future IQ and other traits. That’s another hotly debated technology, but one that has already reached the market, since such testing isn’t strictly regulated. Some have begun to use the term “human enhancement companies” to refer to such ventures. What’s still lacking is evidence that leading gene-editing specialists support these ventures. Preventive was unsuccessful in establishing a collaboration with at least one key research group, and Urnov says he had harsh words for Manhattan Genomics when that company reached out to him about working together. “I encourage you to stop,” he wrote back. “You will cause zero good and formidable harm.” Harrington thinks Preventive could change such attitudes, if it shows that it is serious about doing responsible research. “Most scientists I speak with either accept embryo editing as inevitable or are enthusiastic about the potential but hesitate to voice these opinions publicly,” he told MIT Technology Review earlier this year. “Part of being more public about this is to encourage others in the field to discuss this instead of ignoring it.”

Here’s the latest company planning for gene-edited babies Read Post »

We use cookies to improve your experience and performance on our website. You can learn more at นโยบายความเป็นส่วนตัว and manage your privacy settings by clicking Settings.

ตั้งค่าความเป็นส่วนตัว

You can choose your cookie settings by turning on/off each type of cookie as you wish, except for essential cookies.

ยอมรับทั้งหมด
จัดการความเป็นส่วนตัว
  • เปิดใช้งานตลอด

บันทึกการตั้งค่า
th