Daily research notes15 min read

Perturbations, state, and sampling paths

SOMA · Scheduler tensor aliasing · Data breadth · DDIM

Two main readings and three briefs separate perturbation guarantees, implementation state, and data composition. The DDIM classic examines how one training objective permits different sampling paths.

MuonScaling lawsPost-trainingDiffusion models
Daily classic · 2021DDIM
Main readingRead Algorithm 1, §§4–5 and Theorem 1; not reproduced

Stale perturbations: what convergence survives?

Sharpness-aware Orthogonalized Momentum Algorithms
Geetika · Shivani Singh Chauhan · Gauranshi Gupta · Anant Jain · Kaushik Kalyanaraman · Bapi Chatterjee
First posted 2026-10-23 · v1; overlap-window catch-up

SAM (2021) usually needs two gradient evaluations per step. SOMA transforms a stale gradient residual after subtracting a momentum-based EMA. Indices below follow Algorithm 1; NS denotes a finite-step spectral transform.[1]

ρ is the perturbation scale; γ is the residual coefficient; initialization is separate [1]
Et=ρNS⁡q(Gˉt−1−γ(1−β)Mt−1),Gˉt=∇fBt(Wt−1+Et)E_t=\rho\operatorname{NS}_q(\bar G_{t-1}-\gamma(1-\beta)M_{t-1}),\quad \bar G_t=\nabla f_{\mathcal B_t}(W_{t-1}+E_t)
Original update: T+1 gradient evaluations over T steps, versus 2T for FP-SOMA [1]
Mt=βMt−1+Gˉt,Wt=Wt−1−ηNS⁡q(Mt)M_t=\beta M_{t-1}+\bar G_t,\qquad W_t=W_{t-1}-\eta\operatorname{NS}_q(M_t)

Theorem 1 assumes a lower-bounded objective, operator/nuclear-norm Hölder smoothness and bounded p-th central noise moments with independent minibatches. It controls the average expected nuclear gradient norm, retaining a floor proportional to ρ raised to ν. Direction-insensitivity of this bound does not establish better generalization.[1]

Main readingRead reproduction, fix and recovery-test descriptions; code not executed

When the scheduler changes the experiment

Taming Orthogonal Optimizers at Scale (Part 2): The Anatomy of a Silent Tensor-Aliasing Bug
Jennifer Wei
Public on 2026-10-25; linked by the author’s same-day forum post

In this OLMo-core/Dion3 integration, lr and initial_lr referenced the same scalar tensor. An in-place scheduler update therefore changed its own baseline. Converting values during checkpoint serialization preserved an already corrupted baseline.[2][3]

Illustrative recurrence assuming each step multiplies an overwritten baseline; not a universal scheduler theorem
ηtintended=η0st,ηtalias=ηt−1aliasst=η0∏j=1tsj\eta_t^{\rm intended}=\eta_0s_t,\qquad \eta_t^{\rm alias}=\eta_{t-1}^{\rm alias}s_t=\eta_0\prod_{j=1}^t s_j

The fix registers initial_lr using float(lr), separating the immutable baseline from the runtime tensor. The author reports matching learning-rate trajectories for 20 uninterrupted steps versus a cold restart after step 10, plus HSDP/FP8 interruption checks.[2]

BriefRead training overview and data-removal comparison; internal evaluation not independently reproduced

Capability depends on the training mixture

Kimi K3.1 Pro Tech Blog: Advancing Open Intelligence
Moonshot AI
Released in the October 23–24 window; original page has no precise displayed date; catch-up

The original blog reports internal xdev-bench-hard pass@3 falling from 90.5% to 81.0% after removing cyber data from mid-training and related RL environments. This is not pass@1. Both stages changed together, preventing separate attribution; no fitted compute–performance curve is provided. The technical comparison, rather than the launch itself, is included.[4]

BriefRead abstract and §§1–2; not reproduced

Selection can dominate long-context training

HyScale: Scaling Long-Context Training for Learned Sparse Attention
Yangsheng Deng et al.
First posted 2026-10-23 · v1

HyTopK finds exact top-k indices online; selection replay reuses them during recomputation. The paper reports 2.07× end-to-end GLM-5.1 training speedup over Megatron-LM at 1M context on 512 H20 GPUs. Layer-level gains for other architectures are not whole-model gains. This studies context-dependent compute costs, not a new loss scaling law.[5]

BriefRead §4.3 ablations; other experiments not fully checked

Expand source diversity at a fixed trajectory budget

For Qwen3.5-35B-A3B, repository coverage rises from 20% to 100% at fixed trajectory count, average difficulty and task proportions: four benchmarks improve overall, with intermediate fluctuations. At 30,000 trajectories, raising mean difficulty from 2.4 to 3.2 gives no consistent benefit. These ablations distinguish source breadth from difficulty; they establish no universal power law.[6]

Daily classic · Historical workRead §§3–5, Theorem 1 and Table 1; not reproduced

A training objective does not uniquely determine the sampler

Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models
Jiaming Song · Chenlin Meng · Stefano Ermon
First posted 2020-10-06; ICLR 2021; read v3 (2022-06-09)
ICLR 2021 · Foundational diffusion-sampling work ↗

DDPM (2020) training uses noisy marginals without uniquely fixing path coupling. DDIM (ICLR 2021) changes that coupling, reusing one denoiser across samplers.[7][8]

α is cumulative retained signal, decreasing with t; not a one-step coefficient [7]
xt=αtx0+1−αtϵ,ϵ∼N(0,I),Lγ=∑tγtE∥ϵθ(xt,t)−ϵ∥2x_t=\sqrt{\alpha_t}x_0+\sqrt{1-\alpha_t}\epsilon,\quad \epsilon\sim\mathcal N(0,I),\quad L_\gamma=\sum_t\gamma_t\mathbb E\|\epsilon_\theta(x_t,t)-\epsilon\|^2
Theorem 1: path-dependent variational objectives equal weighted denoising losses plus a θ-independent constant [7]
Jσ=Lγ+C,γt>0,σt>0J_\sigma=L_\gamma+C,\qquad \gamma_t>0,\quad \sigma_t>0

Weight-independent optima require unshared parameters across times; finite shared networks retain trade-offs. Deterministic sampling takes the zero-noise limit.[7]

Original sampler extended to s<t; z is independent standard Gaussian [7]
x^0=xt−1−αtϵθ(xt,t)αt,xs=αsx^0+1−αs−σt,s2ϵθ(xt,t)+σt,sz\hat x_0={x_t-\sqrt{1-\alpha_t}\epsilon_\theta(x_t,t)\over\sqrt{\alpha_t}},\qquad x_s=\sqrt{\alpha_s}\hat x_0+\sqrt{1-\alpha_s-\sigma_{t,s}^2}\epsilon_\theta(x_t,t)+\sigma_{t,s}z
η controls stochasticity; a sparse time grid reduces denoiser calls [7]
σt,s(η)=η1−αs1−αt(1−αtαs),η=0 ⟹ Var⁡(xs∣xt)=0\sigma_{t,s}(\eta)=\eta\sqrt{{1-\alpha_s\over1-\alpha_t}\left(1-{\alpha_t\over\alpha_s}\right)},\qquad \eta=0\ \Longrightarrow\ \operatorname{Var}(x_s\mid x_t)=0

READ THE ORIGINALS

Original sources

  1. SOMA: algorithm and theorem
  2. Original debugging account
  3. Author forum post: date verification
  4. Original Kimi technical blog
  5. HyScale: costs and system results
  6. POSEIDON: §4.3 ablations
  7. DDIM: historical theory and experiments
  8. DBLP: ICLR 2021 publication record
Search window

2026-10-23 09:04 — 2026-10-26 09:04 · America/New_York

READ · THINK · DISCUSS

Discussion & likes

Discuss a derivation, add a reference, or suggest the next classic.

Comment, reply, or like below. Sign in with GitHub to participate; comments are public.

Loading discussion…

Open discussion on GitHub ↗

← Back to all issues