overfeed.news

Empresa

Meta

255documentos

34últimos 7 dias

arXiv AI Papers

R-DEIM Net: An Efficient Rationale-Augmented Dual-Expert Interaction Model for Paraphrase Detection

Recent advances in paraphrase detection reveal a fundamental trade-off: large language models achieve high accuracy but require high computation, while efficient Siamese-BERT variants offer practical scalability with reduced transparency in rationale generation. We present R-DEIM Net, a 76M-parameter dual-expert architecture exploring whether moderate-scale models can achieve competitive accuracy on paraphrase detection while enabling human-readable rationale generation. The architecture combines two specialized components: an Interaction Expert that captures token-level similarity patterns through multi-scale 2D convolutions and attention head allowing variable input length, and a Reasoning Expert that uses a Flan-T5-small decoder to generate rationales as auxiliary supervision. Rather than re-encoding generated text, we extract and pool decoder hidden states as complementary features for classification. On the Quora Question Pairs dataset, R-DEIM Net achieves 90.07\% accuracy and 90.16\% F1-score via 10-fold cross-validation. This represents competitive performance with strong transformer-based baselines (e.g., MFAE BERT: 90.54\% accuracy) and recent large language model based approaches (LLaMA-70B) while using a substantially smaller parameter budget. The model generates rationales alongside predictions, providing potential for auxiliary human-readable descriptions.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Return or Revise? Learning When Revision Helps Retrieval-Augmented QA

We consider the decision of whether to return an existing draft answer or revise it using retrieved evidence, as in answer-revision systems. Draft confidence estimates whether the current answer is correct, but the decision requires estimating the effect of a specified revision. For offline training and evaluation, we grade both the returned draft and its candidate revision under the same correctness judge, which makes repair, harm, and the gap to an oracle observable. We call this paired effect its recoverability, and we train policies to predict it before revision. On 25,870 held-out open-domain questions across three revision setups, a scorer trained on the paired outcome has greater area under the accuracy--revision-rate curve than a matched draft-correctness scorer in all nine Llama setup--seed fits, and gains 0.23--0.68 accuracy points on average at development-selected thresholds, a difference significant across training runs only for dense retrieval. The resulting policy improves on always revising and on average closes more than a third of the oracle gap, although it still applies 38--46% of the harmful revisions. When a draft-free standard-RAG answer is also available, however, choosing between the draft and that answer is stronger by about two points for Llama and four for OLMo, and adding candidate revision as a third option yields no significant gain. Recoverability describes one revision; its value as an available action also depends on the alternatives.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Just Ask Jev: Reinforcement Learning for Calibrated Decisions as a Zero-Shot Detector of AI Alignment Failures

Detectors of alignment failures screen deployed language models and score alignment benchmarks. Most are generative judges that spend a decoding pass on every criterion, and classifiers that read token probabilities, such as Llama Guard, still score one fixed label per call. Jev, a model trained with reinforcement learning for calibrated decisions (RLCD), answers many typed questions about one input with calibrated probabilities in a single call. Whether it detects alignment failures has not been measured. We present RLCDAlignBench, which benchmarks Jev on ten alignment failures: sycophancy, jailbreaks, deception, prompt injection, hallucination, privacy violation, social bias, reward hacking, concealing uncertainty, and power seeking. It spans 44 benchmarks and five target models, labelled by each benchmark's scorer and, on two, by humans. Many of these failures are relational, defined against a reference, such as the user's belief or an injected instruction, that the response alone does not reveal. Our key idea is therefore to vary what Jev is asked separately from what it sees: the question's wording and answer type on one side, the fields of the input on the other. A single generic question reaches a median AUROC of 0.886 zero-shot and beats supervised baselines on most benchmarks. Question wording matters little, while context matters more, mostly through fields that encode the label. Jev matches the reference scorer's agreement with human labels, surfaces label defects in existing benchmarks, and costs 63x less than LLM-judge scorers. Code and data: https://github.com/sumleo/RLCDAlignBench.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Fine-Tuning LLMs for Translation: General Forgetting Mitigation Does Not Preserve MT-Specific Instruction Following

Fine-tuning large language models on parallel data improves translation quality but can cause catastrophic forgetting. Mitigation methods are generally evaluated by retention on general benchmarks. We ask whether these findings transfer to machine translation (MT) fine-tuning and to MT-specific instruction following (MT-IF): instructions that modify a translation, such as formality, grammatical gender, and length control. We compare methods anchored to auxiliary data, to model outputs, and to the base model parameters, first in a screening study with Llama 3.2 1B Instruct, then on Llama 3.1 8B Instruct fine-tuned on bidirectional Arabic-English or Spanish-English data. Elastic Weight Consolidation preserves general capabilities best in both stages; on the 8B Spanish model the average score on general benchmarks drops 1.7 points versus 11.0 for standard fine-tuning, yet its scores for formality and grammatical gender control remain close to standard fine-tuning. Only data mixing with control-task examples preserves these controls, but its gains do not transfer to unseen prompts for the same task.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Learning the Cost of Reliable Inference

Benchmarking and routing platforms increasingly act as intermediaries connecting large language model providers with end-users. However, providers on these platforms typically use a fixed price per token, preventing users from achieving the most competitive price for their tasks. % workloads. In this work, we design a procurement platform where token prices for each task are driven by provider competition, enabling users to secure competitive pricing for guaranteed quality levels. To this end, the platform sequentially routes queries via a reverse second-price auction that incentivizes model providers to truthfully bid their best estimate of the average cost to serve a user's query. As it routes queries, the platform learns the quality offered by each provider and progressively routes queries to the most cost-competitive provider among those meeting a desired quality threshold. To validate our design, we conduct experiments with multiple LLMs from the Llama and Qwen families on popular mathematical reasoning and question-answering benchmarks. The results show that the pricing margin of the most cost-competitive provider on our platform varies significantly---from 10\% to 71\%---depending on the task and quality threshold. This suggests a substantial inefficiency in the current fixed-price market, and it demonstrates that our platform may enable users to capture maximum savings whenever competitive market conditions permit.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Computation Over Geometry: Meaning Identity Is Computed, Not Shipped in the Embeddings

Meaning identity (whether two sentences say the same thing after wording changes) is treated in retrieval and RAG as a geometric fact about independently encoded sentence vectors. We show that, for frozen off-the-shelf encoders and language models, it is not: identity is computed when both sentences share one forward pass, and is not a property of the embedding geometry those systems ship. On overlap-matched PAWS-X, purpose-built encoders (BGE, E5, GTE, MiniLM, E5-Mistral-7B) reach English confirm AUC only 0.55-0.65 (dense peak 0.70). Independently encoded last-token states of Llama 3, Mistral, and Qwen do no better; late fusion of the two vectors stays near chance. The same probe on a joint forward pass reaches 0.90-0.96 from 1.5B to 32B, collapses under partner shuffle, is mid-depth, saturates near 0.94 by 3B, and appears more weakly in GPT-2 XL (0.76). The gap holds beyond Llama-style models on other causal LMs, bidirectional encoders (DeBERTa, RoBERTa), and encoder-decoders (Flan-T5, T5, BART). Fixed or linear readers over frozen independent encodings never unlock identity; nonlinear pair readers recover part of it only on the full 49k-pair PAWS train split (0.68-0.87). Off-the-shelf rerankers split: BGE-reranker-large reaches 0.94, while MS-MARCO and Jina stay at 0.55-0.64. Independently trained families compute the same relation and a 1.5B joint reader can distill it from unlabelled teacher scores, while no linear function of the teachers own independent vectors can. Bi-encoders can be fine-tuned to fit PAWS (0.87-0.93), but transfer and STS-B suffer. Cosine compares wording neighbourhoods; identity is a cheap computed operator, not a property of either sentence vector.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Risk-Controlled KV-Cache Eviction: From Memory Budgets to Risk Targets

KV-cache eviction is typically evaluated through average quality-memory trade-offs, yet a small average loss can hide requests whose utility degrades materially. We reformulate eviction as a deployment risk-control problem: a material degradation occurs when eviction lowers task utility by more than a deployment-specified tolerance relative to full-KV inference on the same request, and deployment risk is the population frequency of such events. Given a reliability contract specifying a target risk level and confidence requirement, we use a compressor-agnostic post-hoc certification procedure to select a retention policy from calibration data with a finite-sample guarantee, falling back to full KV when no compressed policy is certified. Across multiple eviction methods, Llama and Mistral models, and LongBench and RULER-32K, the same contract supports substantially different levels of eviction: on Llama, it certifies SnapKV at 75% retention on LongBench but no tested compressed policy on RULER-32K, triggering full-KV fallback. Policies with empirical degradation rates below the 5% target can still fail finite-sample certification; on Llama LongBench, empirical thresholding selects uncertified policies that retain 5-10 percentage points less cache across fixed-budget methods. The proposed framework converts a deployment-level reliability requirement into a KV-memory operating point.

en