Tag: cs.CL

  • Self-Preservation in Language Models

    Self-Preservation in Language Models

    [Submitted on 8 Oct 2026]

    View PDF HTML (experimental)

    Abstract:Continual learning (CL) seeks to adapt pretrained models while preserving prior capabilities. Yet the tasks supplied for preservation cover only part of what a model knows, while forgetting can extend beyond them. Recent work shows that language models can supplement this limited evidence by generating useful replay without access to their original training data. This raises a question about self-preservation: can a model help choose preservation targets that protect its own capabilities more broadly? To study this question, we organize task descriptions and their examples into Task Banks, whose entries can be selected and combined to guide replay generation by a frozen model. Continual instruction tuning with Qwen models of varying sizes yields three findings. First, the new task and learning rate shape which prior capabilities degrade, while tracking previously correct answers reveals losses that average accuracy can conceal. Second, generated replay reduces forgetting on tasks outside the bank. Combining partial banks strengthens this protection, improving mean retention of previously correct answers over either bank alone across the tested sizes. Third, the model can also help choose replay targets: selection informed by the new task improves mean held-out retention over random selection at 4B, with similar new-task gains, although smaller models show no corresponding advantage. Under a fixed example budget, however, replacing new-task examples with replay improves preservation at the cost of smaller new-task gains. Together, these findings show that models can support broader self-preservation by generating replay data and, in some settings, choosing which tasks to replay.

    Submission history

    From: Dongkyu Cho [view email]
    [v1] Thu, 8 Oct 2026 18:24:02 UTC (356 KB)

  • Adaptive DHiSparse: Speculative Decoding over a Load-Adaptive KV Hierarchy

    Adaptive DHiSparse: Speculative Decoding over a Load-Adaptive KV Hierarchy

    [Submitted on 9 Oct 2026]

    View PDF HTML (experimental)

    Abstract:Long-context serving runs out of KV memory before the hardware reaches its useful throughput. HiSparse stores history in host memory and fetches only the selected entries, but it uses one cache budget at every load and does not handle draft-model speculative decoding such as DSpark and DFlash2. We present Adaptive DHiSparse, which supports speculative decoding over hierarchical sparse KV and adapts residency to load. It protects the required working set, retains additional history while GPU memory is spare, and recovers the rest through exact fused retrieval. DSpark and DFlash2 keep their proposal and acceptance rules: queries share missing-row retrieval, draft KV uses a window-bounded ring, and verification staging is reused across layer groups. At 100K context and concurrency 128, GLM-5.3 with DFlash2 delivers 793 output tokens/s per decode GPU, 1.45$times$ HiSparse and 1.27$times$ non-speculative adaptive serving. Held to the same latency bounds as HiSparse, it sustains up to 4$times$ the concurrency and 2.3 to 3.7$times$ the output, depending on the per-token bound. On DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash at 500K context and concurrency 512, Adaptive DHiSparse with DSpark delivers 1.85$times$ the output of resident serving with DSpark. In a load step, optional residency reduces host fetches from 14.2% to 1.4% of selected rows at low load and releases memory under pressure.

    Submission history

    From: Naji Alazhar [view email]
    [v1] Fri, 9 Oct 2026 15:02:35 UTC (309 KB)

  • One Model to Loop Them All: Elastic Latent Recurrence for Language Models

    One Model to Loop Them All: Elastic Latent Recurrence for Language Models

    [Submitted on 8 Oct 2026]

    View PDF HTML (experimental)

    Abstract:A latent recurrent language model applies a shared block of layers repeatedly, so one checkpoint can trade inference compute for accuracy by changing the loop count. At one loop, however, such models typically fall well short of a non-recurrent model of the same size, a one-loop tax that makes a separate non-recurrent model the better choice whenever latency matters. We present Elastic Latent Recurrence (ELR), a recipe for training looped language models without this tax. At one loop, an ELR model costs the same to serve as a non-recurrent model of the same size and, trained on the same data, reaches similar accuracy. Each additional loop then buys more accuracy for more inference compute. Three choices make this work: a gated state update with a learned step size, loop counts mixed within each optimizer update, and conditioning each pass on its loop index and budget. The first two preserve one-loop accuracy, and the third lowers loss at every additional loop. Mixed depths can be introduced late in pretraining to limit the added training cost, and with zero-initialized conditioning added at the switch, this late schedule reaches lower loss than mixed-depth training from scratch. In MoE models, reusing first-loop expert routes on later loops cuts mixed-depth update time by 11.7% with no measurable change in accuracy. At inference, keeping only the last loop’s attention KV cache holds attention KV memory at its one-loop level while retaining most of the gain from additional loops. On 4B dense and 30B-A3B MoE hybrid models, ELR at one loop is 0.52 points below and 1.04 points above its matched baseline on a ten-task average, and four loops add 7.25 and 4.75 points. Carried through post-training, the recipe yields Koi-4B, a single checkpoint that scores an estimated 18 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index at one loop, matching Qwen3.5-4B, and 29 at four loops.

    Submission history

    From: Shantanu Acharya [view email]
    [v1] Thu, 8 Oct 2026 18:05:42 UTC (296 KB)

  • People Making Conversation: Evaluating How Naturally Speech Models Converse

    People Making Conversation: Evaluating How Naturally Speech Models Converse

    [Submitted on 8 Oct 2026]

    View PDF HTML (experimental)

    Abstract:A conversational speech model has to decide, at every pause, whether to speak. Existing evaluations test boundary detection, policy adherence, or aggregate statistics, not this decision. We place real-time speech systems at 427 pauses and 482 turn ends from 176 unscripted conversations in Seamless Interaction, give each the conversation so far, and score what it generates against what the person did: whether and how soon it speaks at a pause; its latency, length, and wording at a turn end; and whether it can answer a question about the preceding 30 to 120 seconds. Across six systems, the hosted APIs (GPT Realtime, Gemini 3.1 Flash Live, Grok Voice) respond at almost every pause whichever endpointer they use; only their latency, about 1 to 4 s with silence-based endpointers and about 8 s with semantic turn detection, decides whether the words land inside the pause. The full-duplex models (PersonaPlex, Moshi) are the only systems that regularly stay silent and the only ones that interrupt within a human reaction time. Hosted systems reply longer than the person. Given the history as text, hosted systems recall 41 to 60% of conversation facts under a Claude Opus 5.5 judge and 19 to 26% under a strict word matcher; hearing it as audio, full-duplex models recall 17 to 22% and 12 to 15%. We release the labels, points, harness, and every output.

    Submission history

    From: Iman Modarressi [view email]
    [v1] Thu, 8 Oct 2026 23:18:20 UTC (1,772 KB)

  • CLUE: A Contrastive Learning Framework for Unsupervised Event Type Induction and Annotation

    CLUE: A Contrastive Learning Framework for Unsupervised Event Type Induction and Annotation

    [Submitted on 8 Oct 2026]

    View PDF HTML (experimental)

    Abstract:Event ontology is the foundational framework for defining events in a dataset. Event type induction generally involves domain experts who define guidelines for creating event types and their names based on the dataset’s domain and scope. However, this process is resource-intensive in terms of annotation costs and is prone to human biases. To alleviate the need for manual event ontology creation, we propose the CLUE framework for event type induction, naming, and annotation. Our main contributions in this work are: 1) designing a novel joint embedding representation for expressing both the verb-centric view and the semantic view of events; 2) event type induction using contrastive loss guided clustering; 3) event naming and refinement. Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. Our code is available at this https URL.

    Submission history

    From: Pratik Maitra [view email]
    [v1] Thu, 8 Oct 2026 18:05:16 UTC (382 KB)

  • OARelatedWork: A Large-Scale Dataset of Related Work Sections with Full-texts from Open Access Sources

    OARelatedWork: A Large-Scale Dataset of Related Work Sections with Full-texts from Open Access Sources

    [Submitted on 3 May 2024 (v1), last revised 9 Oct 2026 (this version, v3)]

    View PDF HTML (experimental)

    Abstract:This paper introduces OARelatedWork: a dataset for related work generation from open-access sources. It is the first large-scale multi-document summarization dataset for related work generation, containing whole related work sections and full texts of cited papers. Its validation and test splits are constructed so that every source paper is available in full text, enabling controlled evaluation of full-text related work generation. The dataset includes 94 450 papers from multiple domains. With OARelatedWork, we aim to shift the field from generating parts of related work sections from abstracts only to generating entire related work sections from all available content. We (i) benchmark a wide spectrum of models, highlighting that synthesizing massive full-text contexts remains challenge for tested cost-effective Large Language Models (LLMs): under our statement-level judge, GPT-4o-mini’s evidence-grounded True rate drops from 92.9% with abstracts to 83.8% with full texts. We (ii) empirically analyze human writing behavior through a human evaluation over 40 papers and 408 factual statements, revealing that authors frequently introduce abstractive claims ungrounded in localized source texts; consequently, tested LLMs actually surpass human baselines in strict, evidence-grounded factuality. Finally, we (iii) conduct a fine-grained meta-evaluation, revealing that standard reference-based metrics are inadequate for evaluating such long-form structured outputs, and introduce a robust statement-level evaluation framework to address this gap.

    Submission history

    From: Martin Docekal [view email]
    [v1] Fri, 3 May 2024 08:49:22 UTC (20,532 KB)
    [v2] Mon, 1 Jun 2026 07:12:15 UTC (10,502 KB)
    [v3] Fri, 9 Oct 2026 07:25:55 UTC (10,511 KB)