arXiv subjects

Dushyant Rajput

Publications and source records attributed to Dushyant Rajput.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

When Can Self-Play Fix a False Belief? Answer Keys, Pass Bands and Replacement Rules in an Execution-Grounded Loop

Self-play loops in which a model writes tasks, derives an answer key and trains on its own matching solutions are often called grounded when the key comes from executing code. We ask which false beliefs such a loop removes. We run expert-iteration self-play with Qwen3-4B-Base on output-prediction tasks, vary the source of the answer key, and track natural beliefs about Python semantics and two misreadings of task specifications planted by fine-tuning ("at most n" read as < n; "the k-th smallest" read as 0-indexed). Executing the generator's own code gave a key that encoded the "at most" misreading on every audited task, and training on it never raised the truth rate above 0.03. A key from an implementation by the unplanted model, a teacher without the error, raised it to 0.23-0.58 after three rounds in four runs. A correct key is not sufficient: the pass band, which keeps tasks solved 1-7 times of 8, admits almost no corrective task while a belief is held on nearly every sample. Execution keys sharply reduced both natural runtime beliefs on diagnostic items in both seeds. Corrections came with replacement rules that fail on neighbouring items the old belief got right. The robust case, present in all four spec runs, is that after the "at most" fix the model increasingly counts the nearest value above a limit that is absent from the list (overcount 0.18-0.38 of control samples at round 3), a case our planted generators almost never wrote (4 of 10,924 tasks); diagnostic-only metrics miss it. Asked for those cases, the planted generator wrote none in 2,061 checkable tasks, against 27% for the untrained unplanted model in one round. Both generators often moved the request into the specification instead ("the cap itself does not count"), and a decorrelated key follows the specification.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Does a Hosted Decision Model Respect Irrelevant Alternatives? A Pre-Registered Test of Option-Set Dependence in Jev

Decision APIs that return a probability for each option are routinely used as if those probabilities were properties of the options themselves. That reading is valid only if the model satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA): adding an option that is neither the right answer nor its strongest rival should leave the odds between those two unchanged. We test this in a pre-registered study of jev-1.13.0, a hosted decision model, using 299,463 calls on intent classification (BANKING77, CLINC150) and topic classification (AG News). Every added option moves the log-odds between the gold label and the strongest wrong label: the root-mean-square systematic shift is 0.20-0.52 nats, 1.2 to 3 times the run-to-run variation, even when the added option takes at most 0.1% of the probability mass. The shifts are directional. An option similar to the wrong answer draws probability from it (+0.10 nats toward the gold label). A paraphrase of the wrong answer produces an intermediate pattern: the gold label's probability is almost conserved, but the paraphrase receives only about a third of the wrong answer's share rather than the half that strict substitution implies. The distortion grows steadily with the logarithm of the number of options, reaching about 1 nat at 255 options, and off-domain padding pushes the odds against the gold label. In contrast, questions packed into one call do not interact (bias < 0.001). Scoring each option with an independent yes/no question removes the option-set dependence but picks the right answer 8.7 points less often. Jev sits between two local baselines, an option-independent scorer and a prompt readout. Its probabilities are best read as relative to the option list they were computed over.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Can a Cacheable Decision Model Follow Rules?

Certo is a small non-generative decision model (Qwen3-4B): it scores candidate actions from their text and returns a probability, instead of generating an answer. The accurate design reads the state, the rules, and each candidate together (a joint scorer), so cost grows with the menu. Independent encoding lets each candidate be encoded once and reused across states (about 5x cheaper at 77 candidates), but separates state from candidate. We ask how much rule-sensitivity survives that move, and whether it can be trained back. Four experiments on Certo: (1) the tested conversion to cacheable scoring loses rule-sensitivity (recall@1 1.00 -> 0.24) while the joint scorer holds 1.00, and a shortlist+rerank rescue fails; (2) targeted counterfactual supervision restores strong performance on held-out synthetic rule tasks (paraphrase, counterfactual, composition; reproducible across seeds), though we do not isolate whether predictions depend on the supplied rule; (3) on real rules the added benefit is not established -- after fixing a truncation confound, the joint scorer wins significantly on the short tier (0.861 vs 0.500) and directionally on the hard tier (0.655 vs 0.483, n=29); (4) a matched cross-domain real-prose mixture did not help and reduced contract accuracy (-9.3, -16.2 points). A cacheable encoder can be made rule-sensitive on its training distribution, but transfer to unseen-source real rules is not established; the joint scorer keeps an edge at the cost of caching.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Shared-Prefix KV Reuse Across Standard LoRA Adapters: Quality and Serving Tradeoffs

A common small-model deployment runs one shared backbone with several LoRA specialists that answer over the same context. Serving them naively re-prefills that shared context once per specialist. We study a narrow, practical question: for already-trained standard LoRA adapters -- not adapters retrained for cache compatibility -- how much task quality is preserved if the backbone's prefill KV cache is computed once and reused across specialists, and what does that buy in serving cost? On a Qwen3-1.7B backbone with two adapters (extractive QA on HotpotQA, arithmetic reasoning on GSM8K), we sweep the boundary at which the specialist takes over from the reused base cache and measure paired quality differences and serving cost. Full-prefix reuse had the lowest prefill cost and a small quality difference on held-out GSM8K (Delta = -4.6 EM at a 160-token budget; -3.0 at 320 tokens; -0.8 under a second training seed -- all favoring native, only the first excluding zero, and the magnitude not consistent). Partial recomputation provided no demonstrated advantage. Neither quality equivalence nor a general boundary-selection rule is established. We also report a closed-form ridge KV translator that did not beat direct reuse, and specialist-dependence contrasts whose intervals all include zero. The measured serving benefit is warm-cache time-to-first-token, which grows with context (~16x at 8K); two-branch peak memory was only 12% lower and, on inspection, the prefix was never physically shared across branches -- this implementation reuses KV values but copies their storage, so shared-cache memory savings are not achieved.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Depth and Scale in the Sub-150M Regime: JugnuLM-53M vs JugnuLM-110M

We scale our conventional sub-150M pretraining recipe from 53.5M to 109.7M parameters, holding the method fixed (Qwen3-style decoder with grouped-query attention, RoPE, SwiGLU, RMSNorm, QK-Norm, and a z-loss; FineWeb-Edu data) and changing only the geometry to a deep-and-thin 23-layer x 576-hidden design. The larger model improves across the board -- BLiMP 78.1 -> 81.3, ARC-Easy 51.4 -> 52.5, WikiText-2 byte-perplexity 2.04 -> 1.95 -- and its 81.3% BLiMP essentially matches GPT-X2-125M (81.28) at about 12% fewer parameters. Notably the 110M model achieves this on fewer training tokens (about 8B vs 12B), so the gain is attributable to capacity and depth, not more data. Both models are deliberately conventional; this report is a clean scaling control and the baseline rung (R0) of an ablation study of what further improves models in this regime. An ablation ladder follows: value residuals (R1) and the Muon optimizer (R2) lift ARC-Easy by a cumulative +3.6 (52.5 -> 56.1) at a near-flat BLiMP and are kept; a diverse data blend (R3) and two logit-distillation settings (R4a/R4b) are not kept -- honest negatives. R3 pins ARC-Easy to FineWeb-Edu's educational filtering rather than raw diversity; distillation from a 1.7B teacher can reach the class-leading ARC-Easy (56.99, matching GPT-X2-125M) but only at a perplexity cost that dialing KD down then erases -- so R2 remains the best kept stack.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Cheap Verifiers, Large Blind Spots: Measuring the Reliability Cost of Cost-Saving Cascades

Inference cascades cut cost by answering most queries with a cheap model and escalating a hard tail to a frontier model that acts as verifier. A natural extension closes the loop: fine-tune the cheap student on the verifier's rejections so the escalation rate, and cost, fall each round. We measure this loop on real LLMs and report four findings. First, the verifier's blind spot, the fraction of the student's wrong answers it accepts, is large and moves adversarially: it grows with student capability ($β$ from 0.12 to 0.55 as the student scales 0.5B to 32B) and shrinks with verifier capability, so it is worst in the cheap-student, cheap-verifier regime cascades exist to create. Second, buying it away returns the saving: a frontier verifier drives $β$ to about 0.05 but then escalates on 46% of hard-MATH queries against a 39% true error rate, paying the frontier price on nearly half of all traffic. Third, naive corrective fine-tuning on the verifier-rejected tail does not improve the small student but degrades and ultimately collapses it, across every teacher we tried (cross-family and same-family), so at this scale the self-improving loop is self-defeating. Fourth, through all of this the cascade's own dashboard, every metric computed through the verifier, reads a flat 3% error while true delivered error swings up to 32%: the system is blind to its own degradation by construction. We then give the theory that explains the blindness, a two-population conservation law, $ε_\infty \lesssim q_0 β_0$, under which every in-loop metric improves while true quality does not, and a synthetic study that validates the mechanism. The practical conclusion: the reliability of a self-improving cascade cannot be read from any metric computed through its own verifier.

cs.AI↗