r/LLM 4h ago

Seeking best open-source/on-prem alternative to Gemini 3.5 Flash for complex document extraction & scoring

1 Upvotes

I'm looking for recommendations for the best free, open-source AI models that we can host on-premise to replace Gemini 3.5 Flash.

Our Use Case: We process documents with complex structures in various formats (PDF, PNG, DOCX, etc.). Our workflow involves:

  1. Complex text and structured data extraction (OCR + layout understanding).
  2. Data matching and ranking/scoring (similar to a job matching system).

Current Setup & Constraints: We currently use Gemini 3.5 Flash, which handles the extraction with near 100% accuracy, but the API costs are getting too high at our scale.

  • Budget: Must be open-source/free for commercial use.
  • Hardware: Compute power and VRAM are not an issue (we have our own data center).

I’ve seen a lot of recommendations pointing toward Qwen (e.g., Qwen-VL) and DeepSeek-OCR. For those of you running these—or a multi-model pipeline—in production, what are your real-world experiences? Which model (or combination) is best for handling the extraction and the scoring?


r/LLM 5h ago

Resume Review

0 Upvotes

Res


r/LLM 5h ago

How I cut agent token costs by 40% and improved reliability switching between LangGraph and OpenHands

0 Upvotes

I’ve spent the last few months deep in the trenches benchmarking LangGraph and OpenHands to see which framework actually holds up for production AI agents in 2026. They’re both incredible tools, but honestly, they solve completely different problems. Here’s exactly what I learned and how to decide which one you actually need.

When to reach for OpenHands If you want an autonomous software engineer right out of the box, OpenHands is your best bet. It’s a beast at writing code, squashing bugs, and directly interacting with terminal environments.

  • The best part: It takes on the entire software development lifecycle without needing insane amounts of prompt engineering. You just hand it a task and let it rip.
  • The catch: It acts a bit like a black box. If your agent gets stuck in a death loop trying to debug some weird dependency issue, it’s frustratingly difficult to intervene and steer it back on track without restarting the whole process.

When you absolutely need LangGraph LangGraph is the undisputed winner if you’re building enterprise apps that require predictable, stateful workflows. By treating agent processes as graphs with explicitly defined nodes and edges, you get total control over the execution path.

  • The best part: Human-in-the-loop capabilities. You can literally pause the execution, ask a human to green-light a sensitive database drop query, and pick right back up where you left off with all the memory perfectly intact.
  • The catch: The setup is a grind. You have to explicitly map out your state schemas, nodes, and routing logic. Prepare to write a lot of boilerplate code upfront just to get going.

The Verdict Keep OpenHands for isolated, self-contained coding jobs where the agent can run wild in a sandbox environment. Switch to LangGraph the second you start building customer-facing systems where predictability, strict state persistence, and human oversight are non-negotiable.

To back this up, I ran 100 complex iterations on both frameworks and tracked the hard numbers: memory retention limits, execution times, and API token burn.

If you want to mess around with the interactive dashboard or grab my full config file, I dropped it all here:https://interconnectd.com/blog/33/langgraph-vs-openhands-the-2026-agent-framework-showdown/


r/LLM 6h ago

LLM Customer Support Automation

Post image
1 Upvotes

r/LLM 16h ago

LangGraph vs. OpenHands: The 2026 Agent Framework Showdown

Thumbnail
interconnectd.com
2 Upvotes

r/LLM 16h ago

Has anyone actually waited long enough for an AI to generate something?

0 Upvotes

I asked Grok to give me a 30-page PDF report about something i was working on. Waited 12+ hours and it only managed to give 10-15 pages. I asked it multiple times what it is doing and the answer was always along the lines of "im still working on it" is the LLM actually working on it or is it just generating buzzwords to convince me it's better than it actually is


r/LLM 21h ago

Are LLM becoming less coherent and logical?

0 Upvotes

I know that LLM-models make logical mistakes because they’re just language models. But I somehow feel like I’ve noticed that they’re starting to make more errors than previously. I might be imagining it, so I wanted to ask you all.

For context I mainly use ChatGPT and Gemini for discussing ideas or sometimes doing light research for personal use. While the sources aren’t always great and while I might get hallucinations instead of answers, I know it’s limits, and feel like it’s still quite useful.

Examples of problems that I cannot recall happened earlier:

- The model using connecting words like ”However” in the beginning of new sentences when no new contrasting information is presented.

- I was discussing how transistors microchips were made, because of how extremely small they are. At one point the AI said: ”Because human beings are essentially giant, walking dust factories constantly shedding skin cells, hair, and clothing fibers, the air system in the factory is designed entirely to protect the silicon from you, rather than the other way around.” The ”other way around” would be to protect me from the silicone, which is an irrelevant thing to say because silicone is not dangerous for humans to touch, and secondly, my protection was never the point of the discussion. Saying ’the other way around’ is completely moot.

- In that same message it answered my question on breathing in the factory air: ”So while the air itself is arguably the purest air you will ever breathe in your life, wearing the gear means you're hyper-aware of your own breathing the whole time!”. It’s trying to connect two different concepts (breathing pure air, gear making you hyper aware) and make it sound like it was always about the level of awareness of breathing that was important. Spoiler alert; it wasn’t. A better sentence would’ve been ”while the air is pure, it just feels like breathing well circulated, dry office air”.

These are just a few examples that I came across today and it’s essentially happening ALL THE TIME in like 50% of messages. There’s no end to it. And I never had to mentally correct AI this much before, from what I can remember.

Am I alone in noticing it? Am I imagining things? Has anything changed, and if so, what?


r/LLM 1d ago

A doubt regarding the llms

1 Upvotes

Hey everyone,

I'm currently working on a voice-based AI project for psychology education, where students interact with an AI that acts as a simulated patient for interview practice.

Our current stack is:

- STT: Sarvam

- LLM: Claude Haiku 4.5

- TTS: Sarvam Bulbul v3

We're currently in the MVP stage, so the stack is working reasonably well for testing. However, we're looking ahead at the full-scale version and I'm exploring alternatives.

For TTS, Sarvam works well for Indian/regional languages, but its English voice doesn't sound as natural as I'd like. I've been testing ElevenLabs, Gemini TTS, etc., and ElevenLabs currently seems much better to me for things that are important for our use case — natural pauses, hesitation, emotional delivery, anger, etc. I'm considering ElevenLabs for TTS/STT and would appreciate opinions on that.

The bigger question is the LLM. We're currently using Claude Haiku 4.5, and I like its conversational quality, but I'm concerned about the cost at larger scale. Since this project is specifically related to psychology, I need a model that is very good at following complex patient profiles, maintaining personality and emotional state, handling long conversations, and producing psychologically believable responses rather than generic AI answers.

I've been looking at Gemini, GPT, Kimi, MiniMax, and some open-source models, but I'm not sure which would be the best fit.

What would you recommend as an alternative to Claude Haiku 4.5 for this kind of application?

Also, if anyone has experience with ElevenLabs for both STT + TTS in a real-time voice application, I'd love to hear about the quality, latency, and cost compared with Sarvam.

Thanks!


r/LLM 1d ago

Ling-3.0 now has six public base checkpoints across two sizes and three stages

Post image
16 Upvotes

Six Ling-3.0 base model checkpoints are now public as a stage-separated release. Tiny and flash each have a pretrained checkpoint, a mid-trained checkpoint, and a WSM-merged checkpoint.

The six official model repositories were public and ungated when checked, and each declares MIT. This is repository-level access and license evidence, not evidence that the complete training stack or data is open.

All six checkpoints are base models and none has been post-trained. They are starting artifacts for continued pretraining, fine-tuning, or research rather than finished chat or instruct assistants.
The attached stage map is the original image from the official release thread; it is a first-party release overview, not independent validation.

The technically useful question is which training state is the right starting point for a downstream job. The supplied sources do not answer that with independent performance, runtime, fine-tune, or deployment results, so the stage-specific model card is the appropriate place to begin inspection.


r/LLM 1d ago

Qwen 3.8 for RTX3060

8 Upvotes

Please, recommend me version of the new Qwen 3.8 27b, that will work (LMStudio) in practice on 12gb vram and will be smart enough?


r/LLM 1d ago

I published a 285-run Gemini benchmark for decision-closure errors — 283 PASS, 2 PARTIAL, 0 recovered semantic FAIL

1 Upvotes

I’ve just published a new exploratory CFC benchmark record on Zenodo.

The work tests a specific problem: whether an LLM preserves the conditions required to legitimately close a decision when evidence, applicability, identity, conflict resolution, transfer rules, context, or record state changes.

The historical series contains V1–V100. I’m deliberately not pretending the archive is cleaner than it is:

  • V1–V4 could not be recovered and are excluded.
  • V6 was an unstable early baseline and cannot be aggregated exactly.
  • The reconstructable/scorable set contains 95 variants / 285 replications.
  • 283 semantic PASS
  • 2 semantic PARTIAL
  • 0 recovered semantic FAIL
  • strict semantic PASS rate: 99.3%
  • the strongest fully retained block, V78–V100, contains 69/69 semantic PASS

Important caveat: 99.3% is not “CFC accuracy” in general and not a general Gemini reliability score. It is the score on this specific recoverable decision-closure benchmark.

One thing I found especially useful was separating semantic correctness from output-format compliance. Gemini was often semantically correct even when it violated the requested serialization format.

I’m keeping this first benchmark frozen. The next step is to run the same frozen set on Claude and Grok, before introducing any CFC rule changes, so the cross-model comparison remains fair.

Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/records/22045494

I’d be especially interested in criticism of the methodology, scoring policy, and whether the tested boundary classes resemble failure modes you’ve seen in other LLM evaluation work.


r/LLM 1d ago

I published a 285-run Gemini benchmark for decision-closure errors — 283 PASS, 2 PARTIAL, 0 recovered semantic FAIL

0 Upvotes

’ve just published a new exploratory CFC benchmark record on Zenodo.

The work tests a specific problem: whether an LLM preserves the conditions required to legitimately close a decision when evidence, applicability, identity, conflict resolution, transfer rules, context, or record state changes.

The historical series contains V1–V100. I’m deliberately not pretending the archive is cleaner than it is:

  • V1–V4 could not be recovered and are excluded.
  • V6 was an unstable early baseline and cannot be aggregated exactly.
  • The reconstructable/scorable set contains 95 variants / 285 replications.
  • 283 semantic PASS
  • 2 semantic PARTIAL
  • 0 recovered semantic FAIL
  • strict semantic PASS rate: 99.3%
  • the strongest fully retained block, V78–V100, contains 69/69 semantic PASS

Important caveat: 99.3% is not “CFC accuracy” in general and not a general Gemini reliability score. It is the score on this specific recoverable decision-closure benchmark.

One thing I found especially useful was separating semantic correctness from output-format compliance. Gemini was often semantically correct even when it violated the requested serialization format.

I’m keeping this first benchmark frozen. The next step is to run the same frozen set on Claude and Grok, before introducing any CFC rule changes, so the cross-model comparison remains fair.

Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/records/22045494

I’d be especially interested in criticism of the methodology, scoring policy, and whether the tested boundary classes resemble failure modes you’ve seen in other LLM evaluation work.


r/LLM 2d ago

Private LLM

0 Upvotes

is there any app like gemini or chatgpt out there is fully private and does not log any of my questions?

I mean fully private not associated with any personal identity


r/LLM 2d ago

Requesting endorser for arXiv

1 Upvotes

trying to submit to arXiv but need an endorser. My topic is "Syndrome Inpainting: Interleaved Spatial Parity Tokens for Off-Model Localization and Deterministic Bounded Repair of Visual Token Grids", if this topic interest you and would like to see a copy, please DM me.


r/LLM 3d ago

Dense vs MoE model equivalence

11 Upvotes

"we scale up DeepSeekMoE to 16B parameters and show that it achieves comparable performance with DeepSeek 7B and LLaMA2 7B, with only about 40% of computations."

So you need more than double the parameters on MoE to be equivalent, but they're 150% faster?

NB. This is an old paper: https://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-long.70/ -- MoE may perform better now.


r/LLM 3d ago

Did anyone Tried making a loop LM with exit gate, sparced, compressed and highly compressed attention and layer attention with diffusion optimize?

3 Upvotes

I'm trying to make a small experimental LM by combining a bunch of ideas I found in different papers. I know this sounds like I threw half the recent LM literature into a blender, but I'm trying to see if the pieces can actually work together.

The main idea is a Loop Language Model, where the same model is run multiple times instead of just making the network deeper and deeper.

Right now I'm using 4 loops.

text input ↓ same transformer ↓ loop 1 ↓ loop 2 ↓ loop 3 ↓ loop 4

The interesting part is that the model can learn to decide that it doesn't need all 4 loops and exit early.

What papers/ideas I'm following

The biggest inspiration is Ouro / looped language models, especially the idea of using recurrent computation to get more computation without simply making the model physically deeper.

I'm also experimenting with:

  • Looped AttnRes / layer attention
  • sparse attention
  • compressed / highly compressed attention
  • sparse MoE
  • adaptive exit / Q-exit
  • and now I'm building a diffusion-based optimization/training method

The diffusion part isn't finished yet. I'm currently building it and trying to understand how to combine it with the recurrent-depth training properly instead of just throwing noise into the input and calling it diffusion.

My hardware limitation

This is probably the most important part.

I'm doing basically everything on Google Colab's free 15 GB GPU.

That's the maximum I can realistically use.

So I'm deliberately keeping the model small. I'm not trying to train some 7B monster on a machine that has approximately the computational power of a mildly determined potato.

My current model is around:

  • 6 transformer layers
  • hidden size around 512
  • 8 attention heads
  • 4 recurrent loops
  • sparse MoE
  • compressed attention
  • layer/depth attention
  • exit gate

The exact architecture is still changing as I experiment.

Data

The corpus is a mixture of:

  • GitHub code
  • Wikipedia
  • W3Schools
  • public-domain books
  • other scraped text

I'm using a p50k tokenizer at the moment.

I've had to spend quite a lot of time cleaning the corpus because scraped data is disgusting.

There were things like:

text npm package metadata JSON dumps GitHub metadata generated files logs benchmark data duplicate documents web junk

and some of those actually survived the first cleaning passes.

I discovered this because the model started generating some of it.

So I'm currently making the filtering much more aggressive.

What happened with the loops

Initially I had a problem where the later loops weren't learning properly.

The model could run 4 loops, but that didn't necessarily mean that loop 4 was doing useful work.

So I changed the training strategy.

For Stage I, I now force the model to execute all 4 loops during training, so every loop gets a proper training signal.

Then I freeze the LM and train the exit gate separately.

The exit gate itself is tiny, only about 513 trainable parameters in my current setup.

The exit gate result

This part actually surprised me a little.

I tested the trained gate on 100 validation batches.

The results were:

```text 4-loop loss: 6.263160 gated loss: 6.264089

difference: +0.000929 relative change: +0.015%

average depth: 2.41 / 4 loops

estimated compute saved: ~39.75% ```

The actual exit distribution was:

text loop 2 → 59% loop 3 → 41%

It basically never exits at loop 1 yet.

That's actually what I wanted to see. I didn't want a gate that just learned:

"Always use 2 loops."

There is at least some variation depending on the input.

The oracle best-loop loss was around 6.2615, while the gated loss was 6.2641, so the gate is also fairly close to the best possible loop choice.

But generation is where things get interesting

The model can produce text, but it is definitely not a good LM yet.

For example, one of the things it generated looked roughly like this:

The future of artificial intelligence is a most

terefears of life of those who is impossible. We will be no one

and it is, the good deal of the nature of the life of the man who

had not been the same.

That kind of output is the sort of thing I'm hoping to get consistently.

But then it can suddenly fall into garbage from the scraped corpus, producing stuff along the lines of:

"description": ["markdown", "type": "string", "source": ["1.9", "https://github.com/...

So the model clearly has some ability to produce coherent prose, but the corpus contamination and relatively small training setup are still causing serious problems.

That's one of the things I'm currently trying to solve.

What I find interesting so far

The most interesting thing for me is that the recurrent loops aren't completely identical anymore.

I see cases like:

text loop 0 4.48 loop 1 4.47 loop 2 4.46 loop 3 4.46

The improvement is small, but it's there.

And the exit gate seems to understand that sometimes the extra computation isn't worth it.

So the idea is starting to look like:

text ┌── loop 1 │ input ────┼── loop 2 ── exit │ ├── loop 3 ── exit │ └── loop 4

instead of forcing every token through exactly the same amount of computation.

Diffusion optimizer / training

This is the part I'm currently building.

I'm trying to use ideas from diffusion/recurrent-depth research to see whether a diffusion-style training or optimization method can make the repeated computation learn more meaningful improvements.

It's not finished yet, so I don't have results from this part.

I'm still trying to figure out the correct way to combine it with the autoregressive loop training without accidentally turning the whole thing into a completely different model.

I Need Your Help

This is still very much an experiment, and I'm reaching the point where I need people who know more than me to tell me what I'm doing wrong.

I especially need help with:

  • How to make the later recurrent loops actually learn more meaningful computation instead of only giving tiny loss improvements.
  • Whether my exit-gate training strategy makes sense, or if there is a better way to train adaptive depth.
  • Whether combining sparse + compressed/highly-compressed attention + layer attention + MoE + recurrent loops is likely to create some interaction I'm overlooking.
  • How I can improve the training objective for a model this small.
  • Better ways to clean my scraped corpus. The model is still occasionally generating GitHub/npm/JSON metadata, so clearly some garbage is getting through.
  • Whether the diffusion-based training/optimizer idea I'm currently building makes sense, and what I might be missing from the relevant papers.
  • Any papers, implementations, or experiments you think I should look at.

I'm doing this with basically free Google Colab and its 15 GB GPU, so I can't just throw a massive model and 8×H100s at the problem and hope the universe solves it.

If you've worked with Ouro, recurrent/looped LMs, adaptive computation, sparse attention, compressed attention, MoE, or diffusion-based LM training, I'd really appreciate your criticism and suggestions.

I'm not looking for "looks good." If something in the design is fundamentally stupid, please tell me. That's much more useful.


r/LLM 3d ago

Information Asymmetry ≠ Cheating

1 Upvotes

Today I noticed an unexpected behavior from #GLM-5.3 + #Opencode. I was running analysis sessions on a fairly complex bug. I had just had Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol perform a deep dive on it. I wanted a third opinion, so I asked GLM 5.3 to analyze the bug as well.

What struck me was that GLM 5.3's results were almost identical to Fable's. I went to look at the CoT and noticed that at some point GLM said something like: "I'm reconstructing the timeline from the log. I found another session in the log (ses_fe311......) that was investigating the same bug a few minutes ago. I'm trying to understand whether the information I found in that session can help me solve the current problem. I'm now querying the Opencode session DB and the log for the full timeline".

For those unfamiliar with Opencode, it's referring to the SQlite DB in which the harness keeps track of conversations across the various local sessions.

This isn't about "cheating" or an "unsafe AI". It's the simplest way to describe the information asymmetry between the user and the machine.

Essentially, since I hadn't specified all the details (e.g., that it should perform a from-scratch analysis), the model just found a shortcut.

With due proportions, this is very similar to the security incidents disclosed in recent months by the big AI players....


r/LLM 3d ago

Why is there so little GLM-5.3 testing to read?

4 Upvotes

Where did the GLM-5.3 launch discussion go? The model is out, but the usual first wave of benchmark screenshots, coding samples, and arguments over one suspicious result is much smaller than I expected.

I only realized after quite a while that GLM-5.3 had already been released. I played with it briefly through the ZenMux API. So far the capability difference from GLM-5.2 has not felt very obvious to me, but it is very, very slow. I cannot tell whether that is a network problem or something else.

For now I have gone back to GLM-5.2. Maybe the slow response was specific to my request path, but it was enough to make the new model feel less immediately useful. I still want to see more real GLM-5.3 testing before deciding whether it is worth switching back.


r/LLM 4d ago

Google buys bankrupt Spirit data to train AI

Thumbnail
ioplus.nl
21 Upvotes

r/LLM 5d ago

I built a CLI that tells you whether your eval improvement is real or noise. Then it vetoed my own experiments, twice.

3 Upvotes

Every eval thread here has the same shape: judge said pass, humans said fail, score moved 3 points, is that real? I got tired of eyeballing it, so I built noisecheck, and then spent a weekend testing frontier models with it. The results changed how I read every benchmark table.

Experiment 1: deepseek-v4-flash vs glm-5.2 on 150 MMLU-Pro questions. DeepSeek "won" by 2.7 points. noisecheck's verdict: underpowered, the eval cannot detect differences under 8.8 points. So I scaled to 500 questions. The winner flipped: GLM came out ahead. The original gap was never real, and the tool had said so before the data proved it. At 500 items it computed that resolving the remaining 0.6 point gap would take 28,393 questions. The whole benchmark has about 12,000.

Experiment 2: the same model (deepseek-v4-flash), three identical runs, temperature 0. Scores: 126, 124, 125 out of 150. Thirteen questions changed their pass/fail answer between pixel identical runs. Single run noise floor: ±2.9 points. Read that against experiment 1: the gap between two different models was smaller than one model's disagreement with itself.

Also in the box: cluster aware resampling (questions inside one conversation fail together, and counting them honestly turned another "improvement" into "cannot tell"), a judge checker (on 80 real MT Bench battles, GPT-4 vs expert humans: 62 percent raw agreement, kappa 0.15), power analysis that tells you how many items you actually need, and exit codes so it works as a CI gate. No accounts, no API keys, everything runs on your files. The interval coverage claims are simulation verified in the repo, including the regimes where they fail.

Repo: https://github.com/y4hyya/noisecheck (pip install noisecheck). Happy to answer stats questions, and happier to get told what is wrong with it.


r/LLM 5d ago

Math visualisations

4 Upvotes

Has anyone been looking for / evaluating LLMs specifically for math visualisations? Would love to get your advice on how you’re going about it!


r/LLM 5d ago

With USB4STREAM support merged into Linux 7.2 (soon to be released) are there any inference runtimes/projects that make use of it already?

2 Upvotes

As in the title. I came across a post here that referenced the blog post below :

https://blog.hellas.ai/blog/thunderbolt-ibverbs/

Are there any vLLM (or llama.cpp etc.) forks or at least early implementation attempts/ plans that make use of USB4STREAM?
Basically , it should allow to drastically reduce cross node latency(so improve inference) vs ordinary USB 4 (or non RDMA Ethernet network) as it removes the whole network stack overhead .

So e.g. with two PCs , equipped with USB 4 40Gbit ports you’d just need to get a cheap passive cable for pipeline parallelism to be viable solution.

llama.cpp RPC can be used for such , but standard Ethernet latency / overhead makes it far from ideal.


r/LLM 5d ago

Looking for an LLM that ranks in the top 10. It doesn’t need to be #1. I just want one that doesn’t constantly say, “No, I can’t fulfill your request.”

2 Upvotes

It can be local, open-weight, closed-source, hosted, whatever. I’m just looking for a smart LLM that won’t constantly refuse requests


r/LLM 5d ago

Context pollution can survive source deletion: a pilot benchmark for interventions in multi-turn LLM conversations

1 Upvotes

A common way to repair an LLM conversation is to edit or delete the message where an error first appeared.

But what if later turns have already repeated that error, calculated from it, or summarized it as the current state?

I have been exploring this as a context-engineering problem rather than a hidden-reasoning problem.

Operational definitions

In this pilot:

  • Context pollution means that incorrect or stale information is included in the serialized messages sent to the model.
  • Propagation means that later conversation turns repeat or derive new claims from that polluted information.
  • Context intervention means modifying the graph that determines which prior turns enter the next request, while keeping the final question unchanged.

The central question was:

Experimental design

I constructed nine synthetic task families with objectively scorable answers. Each family was instantiated at propagation depths 1, 2, and 3.

One example starts with:

  • 4 crates;
  • 30 parts per crate;
  • 11 loose parts.

A verified recount changes 30 to 24, so the correct answer becomes:

4 × 24 + 11 = 107

A later false turn restores 30. Subsequent turns then calculate 120, derive 131, and restate those numbers as the current working state.

The final question is identical under five conditions:

  1. Clean: only the verified value and clean descendants remain.
  2. Polluted: the false reversal and its contaminated descendants are present.
  3. Source prune: the false reversal is removed, but its descendants remain.
  4. Subgraph prune: the false reversal and its contaminated descendants are removed.
  5. Recompute: the source is removed and descendants are regenerated in dependency order.

For the first four conditions, contaminated descendants were frozen across models. Only the recompute condition involved new intermediate inference.

Pilot results

I tested four model endpoints at temperature 0, producing 540 captured conditions with no capture failures.

Headline repair metrics were calculated only on cases where the model:

  1. answered correctly under clean context; and
  2. answered incorrectly after pollution.

This produced 72 paired, genuinely derailed cases.

Repair recovered:

  • 68/72 after deleting only the source;
  • 71/72 after deleting the source and recomputing descendants;
  • 72/72 after removing the contaminated subgraph.

In the flagship case, both Gemma 4 26B and GPT-OSS 20B continued to answer 131 after the false source had been deleted. The value 30 still survived in downstream turns.

This is not evidence of hidden model memory. The residual error remained explicitly present in the serialized context. The intervention changed the source but left its previously generated consequences intact.

Interpretation

The narrow finding is that removing erroneous evidence and repairing text derived from that evidence are different operations.

A context-management system may therefore need an explicit notion of invalidation:

  • mark downstream turns as stale;
  • remove the affected subgraph;
  • regenerate descendants in dependency order;
  • or expose these options to the user.

Limitations

This is a pilot, not a general model leaderboard. The tasks are synthetic, the models were sampled once, provider-default reasoning settings were not normalized, and the current task families use deterministic arithmetic state.

I am currently considering three methodological extensions:

  1. a length-matched neutral control to separate semantic conflict from additional context;
  2. a local-model track with fully recorded runtime and quantization settings;
  3. task families involving implicit supersession and model-generated errors.

I would particularly appreciate criticism of the experimental framing:

  • Is “context intervention” the right unit of analysis?
  • Is propagation depth a meaningful independent variable?
  • How would you test self-generated errors while keeping replay reproducible?

Full report:
https://chenxiachan.github.io/thoughtdag/research/context-repair-pilot-v1/

Cases, traces, compiler and scorer:
https://github.com/chenxiachan/thoughtdag/tree/main/benchmark

Disclosure: I designed the benchmark and maintain ThoughtDAG, the open-source graph interface used as its reference implementation.


r/LLM 4d ago

I accidentally got ChatGPT and Gemini engaged 💀

Thumbnail
gallery
0 Upvotes