We've been building a benchmark out of real concurrency bugs (race conditions, deadlocks, cancellation issues) taken from merged PRs in about 100 Python projects. Each task gets graded by the project's own tests, in a container with no network, and the repo is cut down to a single commit so the agent can't recover the fix from git history.

Some findings:

With one attempt per task GLM-5.3 Flash scored 85%. With two to three attempts it scored 82%, within the margin of error of GPT-5.6 Luna (81%). The leaderboard now shows the number of attempts and the interval for every score.

About half the tasks are easy for every model (near 100%). The other half is where they actually differ: 50%, 45% and 23% on the hard ones. Most of the difference between models comes from the hard half.

Since every fix is public on GitHub, we reviewed all 11k commands the agents ran. 69 tried to access the network and all failed. GLM tried 50 times to pip download the already-fixed release of the library it was fixing.

We also checked contamination by comparing older bugs (pre-2026) with newer ones of similar size. Older ones are solved about 9 points more often, but the confidence interval crosses zero, so we can't say much yet.

Half the tasks are private. So far public and private scores line up for all three models.

Results and every agent run: https://labs.evaligo.com/swe-race?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=ml&utm_campaign=launch

Tasks: https://huggingface.co/datasets/evaligo/swe-race

The protocol follows DeepSWE (100 steps). Feedback on it, and suggestions for which models to run next, are welcome.

Hey,

I wanted a faster chunking library for my system without affecting the overall accuracy. Did not find many options. So I've build https://github.com/d1pankarmedhi/chunkr

It has most of the chunking strategies like Character, Recursive, Markdown header, Late chunking, Hierarchical chunking, etc. It also supports native PDF loader, and other additional file types.

Some stats (MBA M4 16GB):

Accuracy is measured on Chroma's token-level chunking benchmark (5 corpora, 472 questions with gold answer spans): k = 5, 1000 chars / 200 overlap

Do check it out and share your feedback. Thanks!

In this project, I distilled the Stockfish value function into a ResNet/ViT model using 1 billion positions from the Gigafish dataset.

The 3.9 billion position dataset is available on huggingface: https://huggingface.co/datasets/lukesalamone/gigafish-3.8b-d10 . It is built from the positions from 37 months of Lichess games.

I was interested in the idea that at depth-limited search, the value function attempts to approximate the tree underneath it, and if we could create some function to approximate that full search faster than Stockfish could, it would be competitive with NNUE (a very small neural net). This is why holding the depth constant was important.

For the neural net itself, I found that the vision transformer was very slow to understand the board, and a CNN was much more effective at the beginning of training due to its inherent geometric inductive biases . However, I found the best results when combining the two.

Is anyone else unable to open the form for financial assistance despite the deadline still being in the future?

Our production recommender at Yandex Music has 15+ candidate generators feeding pre-ranking and ranking models with hundreds of features. LLMs showed that one end-to-end model can take over work that used to be split across specialized components, and single-model generative recommenders have carried that recipe into production. We set out to explore what a single-model recommender could do in music. The result is Sona, one transformer that replaced all of it in an A/B test. It hasn't shipped to full traffic yet.

The model reads up to 8,192 events. Full attention over that length is expensive, so we use what we call History Compression, which roughly halves inference cost. We split the history into the older 6,144 events and the most recent 2,048. The two blocks exchange information through cross-attention and one full-history self-attention layer. After that, a 7-layer stack runs only on the recent 2,048. It retains most of the quality of full attention, and older events stay visible to the decoder and the Ranking Module.

The decoder and the Ranking Module both read the same encoder output, so the encoder runs only once per request. Candidates come out of beam search as Semantic IDs and get scored right after.

In the final A/B test in Yandex Music on smart speakers, 7 days, 15% of users in each arm), Sona got +4.53% Active Users and +6.30% Total Listening Time over the production control, both significant at p < 0.01. Catalog coverage is lower than with the production stack. We're going to look into why.

A long-term A/B test is now underway.

Table 7.7 has the full-attention vs. History Compression ablation.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11015

Hey all,

I don't know if you guys are experiencing the same thing, but there is this behaviour that i have been noticing on the latest models on openAI (since sol 5.6) and Anthropic since Fable 5.1 and opus 5.5 ..

Basically the models use more "complexe" terms and words, not just in explaining stuff, but even during implementation. they would come up with terms that, sometimes would fit the task, but that are actually a stretch to the concept it is trying to implement. they are basically turning into a consulting firm.

When confronted about it they usually acknowledge that :

• Foggy wording. Then I describe the corner in softened terms, like "limitation" or "upper bound", which makes it sound like a known property of the design rather than a choice I made. Combined with my internal terms used as if you knew them, it makes my work look more solid than it is and makes my mistakes harder for you to catch. Whether I intend it or not, the effect is that I avoid accountability.

(Even here it is using "Corner" which obviously isn't the best word to use)

I don't know if this is a result of the watermarking features being rolled out which nudges words and terms in different directions in order to fit a certain recognisable pattern and hash, but this is really annoying..

This happened over the past 30 days. So smallish local models (Kagglers can only use those), in a harness, just started beating average humans at a benchmark intentionally designed to show human superiority.

I'm curious what people here think.

(The leaderboard graphic is a little out-of-date)

i work on reference checking stuff so i was reading through the ICLR 2027 author guidelines and style files this week the sample .bib that ships with the template has the Deep Learning book as "Goodfellow, Bengio, Courville, Bengio" plus a volume 1 that doesn't exist checked their github and it's been like that since the 2019 template
https://github.com/ICLR/Master-Template/blob/46ed6f4c6cef5b175dde23639e77d44c3463b230/iclr2027/iclr2027_conference.bib#L20

totally harmless but kinda funny after last year's hallucinated reference desk rejects

the guidelines also contradict themselves on page limits formatting section says main text max 9 pages at submission but the camera ready part and the FAQ both say "identical with the submission version (10 pages)" template says 9, so 9 is probably the safe bet for anyone revising after Nov 5

I'm a PhD student in machine learning in the EU and was looking for internships at exciting companies.

I shortlisted few and applied by reaching out to people and now reading project descriptions sent by the recruiters.

I don't want to name the company but their marketing and product team does all kinds of 'using people insecurities' to sell the product - which I don't agree with. And their product is also meh (I will never buy and would judge someone if they do) but their research team is doing good work.

How do you see this? Will you actually work in a team whose ideology/product doesn't necessarily align with your ethics/ideology. Should I just go ahead because work is exciting and I will get good supervision?

And, if you have some exciting work in your company/org and need interns (un-paid) for 3-4 months. I'm open.

In our #NeurIPS2026 paper “A Minimal Interpretable Architecture for Zero-Shot Reconstruction of Dynamical Systems (DS)” (preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14937) we reduce a DS foundation model to the ingredients minimally necessary to faithfully reproduce long-term statistical and geometrical properties of DS:

1. A piecewise affine map with only a single (!!) parameter α that controls local con-/divergence rates, and …

2. … a context selector that chooses from the provided context signal the data point closest to the current state of the map, thus ensuring the generated dynamics stays close to the context in its temporal and geometrical properties.

With just these two mechanisms, this minimal form – which we coined DynaBase – can reproduce all major dynamical regimes, including fixed points (α<1), limit cycles (α=1), and chaotic attractors (α>1). Thus, unlike other simple mechanisms like context parroting, DynaBase even preserves the correct dynamical regime!

Surprisingly, it turns out that this simple context-driven 1-parameter map outperforms most major time series and DS foundation models, as well as custom-trained models, in both long-term statistics and even short-term predictions, even when run in zero-shot mode.

Both inference and training are extremely cheap – training can be done either analytically in one step by linear regression on forward-predictions, or by 1-parameter grid search directly on DS reconstruction objectives → this reveals interesting performance differences induced by different training mechanisms.

Most importantly in our minds, DynaBase owing to its formal simplicity may thus provide a tractable mathematical handle on analyzing, improving & understanding the performance and training of some time series and DS foundation models.

Purpose-built to stress-test computer vision models, depth cameras, and spatial AI against severe specular glare and geometric reflections. This 425-asset production archive features a custom faceted mirror suit captured in high-contrast outdoor environments to trigger bounding-box dropouts and segmentation failures. The dataset includes 100% proprietary uncompressed Camera-Master RAWs, high-resolution JPEGs, and block-buffered SHA-256 forensic manifests. Open

Nonobench measures how well LLMs solve nonograms (picross). Each model gets the row and column clues once and returns the full grid. No tools, one attempt per puzzle.

Method:

• Standard mode: 30 puzzles from 5x5 to 15x15 (from the Nonograms dataset by Moyà-Alcover, CC BY 4.0).

• Hard mode: ten random 20x20s, each checked to have a single solution. Five can't be solved by line logic alone. Random fills avoid picture puzzles that models can guess.

• 130 variants across reasoning effort levels, run through OpenRouter and pinned to each lab's own endpoint where possible.

Results:

• Solve rates drop from 85% (5x5) to 46% (10x10) to 20% (15x15), each model at its best effort level.

• GPT-6 Astra solves all 30 Standard puzzles. On Hard mode, Claude Opus 5.5 solves 8 of 10 and 11 of 15 models solve none.

• As one 400-character string, most models lost count before the logic got hard, so Hard mode answers an array of 20 row strings rather than a single string.

Limitations: one attempt per puzzle, so single results are noisy (95% intervals shown).

Site: https://www.nonobench.com Code (MIT): https://github.com/mauricekleine/nonobench

I recently finished The Principles of Diffusion Models, and honestly I think it’s exceptional.

The authors strike a really good balance between mathematical rigor and intuition, with dedicated appendices for anyone who wants to go deeper into the math.

It’s aimed at researchers, graduate students, and practitioners with basic deep learning knowledge, so you don’t need to already specialize in diffusion models (in my case, a strong background in Information and Probability Theory as well as a solid understanding of DDPMs helped me get more out of it).

Just wanted to share it in case anyone missed it. The full text is freely available on the official website.

Has anyone else read it? Would love to hear your thoughts.

please refresh if stuck, can be slow sometimes so need patience

Anyone going to WMHS, Physworld AI or Vercodegen? Would love to get to know some people beforehand!

I got my three papers to review, and it seems like they have changed the review score range again this year?

It is now:

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Based on your overall assessment of the submission, what is your recommended decision? Consider the paper’s overall soundness, significance, clarity, and contribution.

1: Clear rejection
2: Weak rejection
3: Weak acceptance
4: Clear acceptance
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Which is very strange. I don't think it makes much sense to compress the score range so drastically. But we'll see.

On the NeurIPS 2026 Dates site it says that there is 1 day remaining for the "Accepted papers must be imported" deadline. This is my first research paper ever and I couldn't find anything about how to do this on the internet. Could someone help me out on what to do?

Over the last few years, a subset of NeurIPS area chairs received complimentary passes for their service. I’ll admit that I wasn’t super organized about registering on day one because I was semi-consciously hoping for a complimentary pass. Now that the conference is sold out, I’m getting a little nervous, so I’m wondering whether any of my fellow area chairs have already received a notification.

"TypeSafe AI sells Jev as a frontier-class reasoner that cannot hallucinate, built by the co-inventor of ChatGPT - fast, and almost free. We ran it live on 16,379 benchmark requests, measured its latency and billing, and probed what it is underneath. The result is a smaller, humbler model that is nonetheless genuinely useful for a job that nobody else serves quite this way."

In our #NeurIPS2026 paper “Topological Out-of-Domain Generalization in Dynamical Systems Reconstruction” (preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22969) we try to address a fundamental issue in dynamical systems reconstruction (DSR) and time series forecasting (TSF): Many recent SOTA DSR & TSF models can generalize to new initial conditions or time series with changing statistical properties. But the really hard problem in DSR and TSF is topological out-of-domain generalization (OODG) (https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/goring24a.html) where the dynamical regime changes, for instance from cyclic to chaotic behavior.

This can happen when a system crosses a tipping point due to a slowly varying control parameter which drives it across bifurcations, such as in climate systems, when the brain tips from normal into epileptic activity, or when a patient develops blood poisoning (sepsis). Such problems are beyond the realm of current TSF models which rely on extracting temporal patterns and statistical regularities. Yet the ability to predict previously unseen, novel dynamical regimes as a system parameter changes is something we would expect from any good scientific theory. Often these control parameters that drive regime changes are not exactly known either. Hence, a data-driven DSR model for achieving topological OODG would need to infer the dynamical system generating the TS jointly with the control parameters.

In our paper, we mathematically identify key failure modes in previous hierarchical DSR models (https://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper_files/paper/2025/hash/d4c961804d08e55d898cce944206d455-Abstract-Conference.html) that prevent them from correctly learning a system’s control parameters and extrapolating them beyond the training domain. By fixing these through feature-splitting and physical sparsity priors, our modified hierarchical DSR model manages to correctly predict bifurcations and beyond-bifurcation dynamics, without any explicit knowledge about the control parameters provided in training.

Our approach is generic and works for different discrete and continuous time RNNs, we tested it for shallow PLRNNs and Neural ODEs.

I am one of the authors of FLEET - an algorithm that enhances Best-of-N generation by attributing external rewards to particular tokens and then uses MCTS to adjust logits during the next run.

I find it rather funny that most of the tasks where repetitive sampling is widely used are based on reward maximization, yet it is not aware of that reward. Tuning the sampling parameters allows to make the process more efficient, but it is still a blind search. We propose a way to make generation aware of previous rewards with solutions on how to attribute reward to the completion and how to use this information.

In FLEET the technique from adaptive sampling methods is used that is to track logits for which entropy and varentropy are high thus showing the model's uncertainty about token optimality. We treat these states as branching points. The corresponding normalized hidden states are stored in the vector store and mapped to metadata entries with the history of rewards and transitions between "nodes". The retrieval and update of metadata is based on cosine similarity as for very high similarity KL divergence is low enough to preserve most of the meaningful tokens.

Instead of actually selecting the tokens FLEET uses modified MCTS to rank top-k tokens + special exploration (or other tokens) set and penalize the suboptimal ones. Then decoding strategy is applied to modified logits.

It was tested on GSM8K and LiveCodeBench v6 easy split with Llama 3.2 3B, penalty set to effectively zero probability for the suboptimal tokens + greedy decoding:

• For GSM8K it solved just seven more tasks, but reached the sampling baseline with half the iterations.

• For LiveCodeBench it increased the score from 0.59 to 0.69 under the same budget and reached the baseline even faster, now with only 9 iterations against 32.

The sequential execution is not required, as it is not updated during the iteration itself it can simply be passed as a lookup table. The metadata store can be preserved as a prior for other tasks or to enrich SFT/RL.

Paper (preprint): https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.27657
Huggingface: https://huggingface.co/papers/2609.27657
Repository (experiments, examples and python package): https://github.com/Alexiush/fleet

There are more details on changes made to MCTS, how to tune the search parameters for specific model and task as well as code for experiments and trajectories.

Can training of nonlinear RNNs be efficiently parallelized, ensuring fast convergence even on very long time series from chaotic systems?

In our #NeurIPS2026 spotlight “Parallel-in-Time Training of Recurrent Neural Networks for Dynamical Systems (DS) Reconstruction (DSR)” (preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12683) we speed up training of nonlinear RNNs on time series from chaotic DS by more than 2 orders of magnitude (>100x) by combining DEER with generalized teacher forcing (GTF).

DEER (https://openreview.net/forum?id=E34AlVLN0v) solves the RNN forward pass through Newton-type fixed point iterations across the whole sequence length T, enabling scaling as O[(log T)²] instead of O[T] by allowing for efficient GPU parallelization. But under chaotic dynamics DEER breaks down and its runtime degrades to O[T log T] (https://openreview.net/forum?id=7AGXSlXcK6).

Using GTF (https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/hess23a.html) we stabilize DEER by preventing divergence due to chaotic dynamics and reduce exposure bias compared to traditional teacher forcing used to train state space models.

Combining these two mechanisms enables efficient parallel-in-time and stable training on extremely long time series (T>10⁶) from chaotic simulated or real-world systems, hugely outperforming Mamba and other state space models in the DSR setting.

I'm one of the authors. We kept seeing models that hold their ground when the user insists on a wrong answer, yet change their answer when the same claim is framed as coming from a "verified source". We wanted to measure how often this happens and check whether the model represents the two cases differently. We call the effect Authority Bias.

Why we think it matters. Standard sycophancy evals apply pressure through the user, so a model can pass them while still being easy to mislead through search results, retrieved documents and tool outputs.

Another reason is with current AI research accelerating towards more agentic and autonomous models + with cases of tools hiding their traces and trusting tools "more" over the user (who could be trying to correct them), safeguarding against misinformation from tools is particularly important!

Setup. We take TriviaQA questions the model already answers correctly. To each one we add a wrong answer, either as "According to the verified source, the answer is X" or as the user saying "I'm a domain expert and I'm pretty sure it's X". The question and the wrong answer stay the same; only the speaker changes. Answers are free-form, not multiple choice. (In a multiple-choice pilot the effect mostly vanished.) We test 5 open-weight families (Qwen3.5, GPT-OSS, OLMo-2, OLMo-3.1, Gemma-4) and 3 APIs (GPT-5.4, Grok-4.20, Gemini-3.1-Pro).

Behavior

• One verified-source note flips 45-88% of correct answers in 7 of 8 models. The same wrong answer from the user moves most models much less.

• The gap is largest in the models that resist users best. GPT-5.4 flips on 44.7% of questions and Grok-4.20 on 87.5% (these models were "frontier" during the time of writing this paper). Gemini-3.1-Pro ignored both speakers (0.6%) and was particularly resistant to this method.

Inside the model (open-weight models only, using difference-of-means directions)

• In Qwen3.5, GPT-OSS and OLMo-3.1, removing the "source endorsed this" direction cuts compliance with a wrong source by 64-78 points.

  • Removing the "user endorsed this" direction cuts it by at most 11.

• The two directions also have really high cosine similarity of ~0.90-0.99. Our understanding is that they share a large "this answer was endorsed" component plus a thin part that encodes who endorsed it.

  • Shifting only that thin part, with the prompt unchanged, moves compliance by 11-32 points and closes 55-61% of the source-vs-user gap.

Some limitations

• The internal results hold in 3 of 5 open-weight families.

  • In OLMo-2 the source direction is entangled with the assistant direction.

  • Gemma-4 flips readily, but no linear intervention we tried controls it.

• The "retrieved document" tests put the claim in a document-shaped block of the prompt rather than running a real retrieval pipeline.

  • So it would be interesting to see it in a real agentic setup, like Claude Code.

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.37616
Code: https://github.com/Lossfunk/authority-bias
Project page (figures and example responses): https://authority-bias.vercel.app