Anuncio

NexTalk

Automatiza la primera respuesta. Mantén el toque humano.

Chat en vivo con agentes de IA en tu modelo y tu clave de API, con traspaso a tu equipo.

Empezar gratis

Empresa

Google

637documentos

66últimos 7 días

Fault tolerant distributed training on Amazon EKS using NVRx

Integrate NVIDIA Resiliency Extension (NVRx) into PyTorch FSDP training on Amazon EKS to overlap checkpoint I/O with training and recover from GPU faults in seconds. This post covers async checkpointing, in-process restart, and ft_launcher in-job restart, with H100 benchmarks at 2 to 8 nodes showing 99%+ training efficiency and second-scale recovery.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Playing log(N)-Questions over Wikipedia Abstracts: Communication Efficiency Between Paired Frontier Models

We evaluate six frontier language models on the two-agent (N)-Questions game. A questioner sees N Wikipedia lead paragraphs and must identify a secretly chosen target using exactly _2 N yes/no questions. An answerer sees only the target and the question, and replies with one word. Both roles run on the same provider, so the game measures how well a model communicates with itself across an information asymmetry. We run 408 games over document sets of 4 to 1024 paragraphs at a total API cost of \$363. One model finishes well behind the others: Claude Opus 5 wins 28 of 68 games, against 45 to 56 for GLM-5.3, GPT-5.6 Sol, Grok 4.6, Gemini 3.8 Flash and Kimi K3. The leading five are only marginally separable. Pooling those five, win rate declines with set size at r=-0.973 and is fit by a single per-round reliability parameter. The form is win=p^{_2 N} with p=0.928. Losses divide into answer errors and discrimination failures in roughly equal measure, and models almost never name a document their own evidence excludes. Every unanimous answer error from the weakest model was inspected: 32 of 34 are ``No'' answers, on properties stated in the document's first sentence, under an instruction that explicitly warns against defaulting to ``No''. Information per question, estimated from answer balance, correlates with win rate at r=+0.88. The only two models to extract a full bit per question are the only two that partition on document titles, a strategy absent below N{=}32 and used in a quarter of questions above it. Reasoning-token expenditure varies 4.5across models with little relation to success, and the trace grows as the candidate set shrinks without a matching gain in reliability.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Enhancing Accessibility of Medical Texts through Large Language Model-Driven Plain Language Adaptation

This paper addresses the challenge of making complex healthcare information more accessible through automated Plain Language Adaptation (PLA). PLA aims to simplify technical medical language, bridging a critical gap between the complexity of healthcare texts and patients' reading comprehension. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GPT and BART, have opened new possibilities for PLA, especially in zero-shot and few-shot learning contexts where task-specific data is limited. In this work, we leverage the capabilities of LLMs such as GPT-4o-mini, Gemini-1.5-pro, and LLaMA for text simplification. Additionally, we incorporate Mixture-of-Agents (MoA) techniques to enhance adaptability and robustness in PLA tasks. Key contributions include a comparative analysis of prompting strategies, finetuning with QLoRA on different LLMs, and the integration of MoA technique. Our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of LLM-driven PLA, showcasing its potential in making healthcare information more comprehensible while preserving essential content.

en
arXiv AI Papers

EviScope: Paired Counterfactual Evidence Diagnostics for Faithful and Efficient Grounded Language Models

Grounded language-model systems are often evaluated by final answer accuracy, yet a correct answer can be unsupported, drawn from the wrong source, or produced when evidence is insufficient or contradictory. We introduce EviScope, a paired counterfactual benchmark that holds the question fixed while adding, removing, distracting, or contradicting its evidence. EviScope-v1.1 contains 40 four-condition quartets with repaired counterfactual claims and span-level support labels for automatic evaluation. Across 960 gold-blind generations from Qwen2.5-7B, Llama 3.1 8B, and Gemini 3.5 Flash, paired metrics expose model-dependent grounding behavior that answer accuracy hides. On two local open models, an explicit evidence-action gate underperforms vanilla RAG on QCS: 0.15 vs. 0.50 for Qwen and 0.10 vs. 0.375 for Llama. Gemini reaches 0.944 joint success under both prompts, yet still answers 5% of conflict cases after contradiction insertion. EviScope therefore distinguishes unsupported answering, conflict blindness, and wrong non-answer actions rather than scoring answers alone.

en