#01Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
Same Behavior, Different Mechanism: What Finite Experiments Can Certify About Integrated Information
Linqian Wu, Diaoxuan He
Interpretability, AI auditing and assessments of machine consciousness increasingly rest on mechanism-level quantities: functionals of a system's causal transition law that describe how it computes, not what it outputs. Experiments see that law only through finite, partial and noisy interventions. We ask when such a quantity is identifiable from an experiment's access, continuous in the mechanism and certifiable from finite data, and answer exactly for a deliberately demanding case - the integrated information $\varphi$ of integrated information theory - in stochastic networks of four and five units with known ground truth. Behavior can be silent: a recurrent and a feed-forward network with identical input-output laws at their response delay carry 0.28 and 0 bits, yet internal recordings separate them within 4-53 trials. Partial access can be just as blind: in our examples, units left out of a one-step recording impose precision floors of 0.30-1.02 bits that no sample size lowers, and in all-but-self parity networks, recordings of any length see several hidden units only through the product of their fidelities - a symmetry that one intervention broke in exact checks. The measure has sharp edges: because $\varphi$ selects a partition, and the cause and effect it specifies, by one criterion and reports another, infinitesimal changes of mechanism that cross an edge change it by 25-100% at 99% of the edges we found in random networks, and about 1% of surrogate models that fit interventional data almost perfectly misreport it by more than 20%. One-sided claims survive: the same data certify a lower bound on both sides of an edge, and we prove $\varphi>1.004$ bits throughout a 64-dimensional region of mechanisms and certify it from about $10^7$ controlled transitions with false-certificate probability at most $α$. Measurability is thus a design question with computable answers.
#02Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
Spectral and Subspace Dynamics of LoRA in Supervised Fine-Tuning and Reinforcement Learning
Chenruo Liu, Zihan Wang, Yijun Dong and 1 more
Low-rank adaptation (LoRA) is commonly used in both supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL), often under similar optimizer settings. Yet, how the different dynamics of the two stages manifest in the low-rank increment that LoRA optimizes remains unclear. Tracking the singular spectrum and subspaces of LoRA updates on mathematical reasoning tasks, we find that RL concentrates the spectrum at every learning rate, while SFT expands it at moderate learning rates; moreover, RL rotates the singular subspaces much faster than SFT at small learning rates. Interpolating between SFT and RL one ingredient at a time, we pinpoint group-mean baseline subtraction as the source of both contrasts. A quadratic multi-index model updated via LoRA unveils the underlying mechanism: group-mean baseline subtraction tilts the balance between two competing forces, coherent fitting and gradient noise, toward spectral concentration and faster subspace rotation, while forcing the risk-favorable learning rate to be low. Guided by these dynamics, we tailor LoRA updates to each stage: in SFT, we flatten the spectrum of the full update to spread adaptation across singular directions, whereas in RL, we flatten the part of the update outside the current LoRA increment span to promote subspace rotation. Experiments on mathematical reasoning tasks across multiple models show that the respective configurations for SFT and RL yield the best performance among the compared methods in most evaluated settings.
#03Nov 5, 2026
cs.CL
Understanding AI from the Inside: The State of Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety
Fazl Barez, Tung-Yu Wu, Hunar Batra and 24 more
Neural networks are likely to be among the most consequential artefacts in human history. As these systems become more capable and autonomous, their potential to cause societal harm also grows, making AI safety one of the defining challenges of our time. Yet we continue to build increasingly powerful systems without fully understanding how they work, how they will behave in unfamiliar situations, or how to reliably control them. Mechanistic interpretability offers a path towards understanding these systems by studying their internal representations and computations, with the aim of evaluating, predicting, and controlling behaviour. We survey mechanistic interpretability for AI safety in order to answer the question: Does understanding how models work actually make them safer? We place mechanistic interpretability in the broader context of interpretability research and compare its mechanistic evidence with behavioural evaluation. We introduce the foundations of mechanistic interpretability, including features, polysemanticity, transformer computation, and circuits, and survey methods for feature extraction and analysis, circuit discovery and causal verification, explaining intermediate representations in natural language, learning dynamics, and training-data attribution. Beyond surveying existing methods, we propose a unified framework for evaluating mechanistic interpretability claims and characterise six research orientations by their goals, assumptions, and trade-offs. Finally, we examine how mechanistic understanding can support AI safety, including knowledge editing, steering, and monitoring, and assess its limitations, failure modes, open problems, and relationship to behavioural safety measures. We also release a repository of code notebooks with worked examples that reproduce key findings from surveyed methods, allowing readers to build intuition through hands-on experimentation.
#04Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
SwarmEvolve: Latent Agent Swarms for Evolutionary Discovery and Optimization
Qile Jiang, George Em Karniadakis
LLM-guided evolutionary search uses AI agents to improve programs for mathematical and computational problems by iteratively refining solutions and combining high-scoring methods. However, the process is often slow because the LLM generates a long textual chain of thought for each round and must repeat this generation many times to maintain population diversity. We present SwarmEvolve, a framework in which hundreds of low-cost agents per round work in swarms, reason in latent space without decoding to text, and share information by passing KV caches. Each swarm studies the problem from a different angle. A novelty filter keeps the most distinct agent ideas by directly measuring the distances between the agents' hidden state vectors. Crossover of ideas happens naturally in latent space, as a summarizer agent receives the combined KV caches of all swarm members. On 21 problems in mathematical discovery and scientific computing, SwarmEvolve gets the highest average score and needs a median of only 3 to 8 minutes to reach the best scores that other state-of-the-art frameworks reach in 60 minutes. On several problems, SwarmEvolve with Qwen3 8B improves on the solutions that AlphaEvolve first found with frontier LLMs. Our work shows that agent swarms that communicate in latent space offer a fast, low-cost approach to program search for scientific problems.
#05Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
Scientist World: Grow a Research World for AI-Scientists
Taiming Lu, Sachin Konan, Zhuang Liu
AI-Scientists arrived, but a world for them to grow in did not. Human scientists take theirs for granted $-$ centuries of open problems and shared ideas, waiting in the scientific literature. To AI-Scientists, that world is readable but not runnable, so we build Scientist World for them: every research paper becomes an executable environment. Our autonomous pipeline extracts each paper's open-ended research question and reproduces its proposed method as the baseline; an AI-Scientist entering the environment is evaluated against what the human authors achieved. We release the first 1,000 verified environments. With the world as an evaluation, we found that frontier AI-Scientists can already surpass the human researchers 74% of the time. As a record of how AI does science, it contains 6,400 hours of research traces, with every idea, experiment, failure, and success. As a training ground, we are able to raise (+158%) a small model to match frontier models in research ideation. At last, AI-Scientists' own world has arrived, grown from and growing with science itself.