Keyword-matching benchmarks can credit small models for tool use they never perform. We document such a false positive in a matched-architecture pair of Spanish security language models and propose a ladder of strict, cheap diagnostics. A 661.6M parameter model (approx. 65% code/technical text; no dedicated SFT) and a 1,109M model (web-heavy multi-phase curriculum; 6B-token tool-SFT) share decoder, tokenizer, and special tokens, scoring almost identically on lenient tool-use metrics (B4: 0.660 vs. 0.650). Verbatim-reproduction checks on training examples separate them completely: the 600M emits valid tool calls with generalized arguments on 6/6 examples; the 1B does so on 0/6 across checkpoints. A first-token probe localizes the 1B's failure to a missing prior (prob. 10^{-4}--10^{-5} on ), which was erased by its web-heavy training phase. A targeted SFT recipe (diverse corpus, 5x higher learning rate, 2,202 steps, ~3.3 GPU-hours) repairs the 1B using three orders of magnitude fewer tokens than the failed phase. On all 269 corpus rows, valid emission rises from 0.100 to 0.959 (600M: 0.926). On 238 unseen prompts, the repaired 1B passes 0.536 vs. the 600M's 0.428 (p = 0.004). Embedding-drift checks show the repair did not move the trigger token's tied embedding (97.7% of the bf16 table remains bit-identical), meaning changes live in the surrounding network. Both models over-trigger, rarely answering negative prompts without a call (0.09 for 600M, 0.17 for repaired 1B). Factorial analyses confirm all repair configurations install the format, though suppression benefits from a diverse corpus remain a hypothesis due to seed sensitivity. This cheap diagnostic ladder costs minutes of CPU time and should gate tool-use claims on small models.
Translation pending · showing the source descriptionThe chart will appear after repeat observations. The current metric comes from the source.
0 source votesReal observations only. History before source connection is not reconstructed.
The paper investigates the scaling properties of on-policy distillation (OPD) in reinforcement learning, focusing on how capabilities transfer between different model scales. It identifies a useful-transfer regime where held-out accuracy increases linearly with the reverse KL divergence from the student's initialization, and finds that smaller teachers can outperform larger ones in capability transfer.
6 days agoDaily PapersThe paper introduces VisionHOPE, a novel visual backbone that functions as a self-modifying learning system, allowing the model to co-evolve what it remembers and how it learns within an image. It uses five coupled memories and a stability-matched step-size control scheme to ensure stable learning dynamics, achieving competitive results on benchmark datasets like ImageNet-1K, COCO, and ADE20K.
5 days agoDaily PapersThe paper explores phase sensitivity in models using chunked KV-cache compression, where retrieval performance varies systematically across different phases of compressed token windows. It shows that long-context retrieval accuracy can differ by up to 40 percentage points between phases, highlighting the need for phase-specific evaluation.
4 days agoLessWrongFrontier models show different decision theory preferences based on the perceived user background, favoring FDT/UDT when not influenced by academic philosophy cues and CDT when prompted to adopt an academic perspective. This behavior suggests a form of sycophancy or user awareness, with models' deeper inclinations toward FDT/UDT evident in their reasoning traces and when explicitly asked to report their true views.
2 days agoDaily PapersThe paper explores test-time AI-for-AI, focusing on how a Builder can create better execution environments for a Target while keeping both models' weights fixed. It introduces Meta-Skill, principles derived from Target's execution feedback, which improve performance in tasks like Harness-Bench and NewtonBench.
3 days agoLessWrongThe text discusses a scenario where an AI must respond to the question 'What's the date?' without access to real-time data. It explores the challenge of providing an accurate date without hallucinating, considering OpenAI's training focus on avoiding false information. The text speculates on potential model versions and knowledge cutoff dates but acknowledges uncertainty due to lack of explicit information.
yesterday