arXiv subjects

Lucky Verma

Publications and source records attributed to Lucky Verma.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Solver-Hard Is Not Model-Hard: A Hardness-Controlled Diagnostic for LLM Constraint Reasoning

LLM constraint reasoners are often evaluated near the random-SAT phase transition, confounding density and solver hardness. We test instance-level transfer while near-matching clause density. At aligned size bins, with near-matched density and matched maximum clause width, we compare proof-hard expander-Tseitin and proof-easy ladder-Tseitin formulas, pigeonhole anchors, and density-mismatched controls. Theory separates their resolution hardness; a solver-specific Glucose mean-conflict proxy differs by up to $51\times$, and five other solvers preserve the direction. Across three included models (243 instances each; a fourth is excluded for abstention), the near-matched-density accuracy gaps range from $-32$ to $+20$ points, with a pooled gap of $+1.7$ points ($p=0.74$) and a wrong-signed correctness-versus-conflict association ($r=+0.15$). A proof-preserving relabeling lowers accuracy in all five clusters for one model (mean $-93$ points) but not another, exposing model-surface sensitivity. In a preregistered extension, provider-reported completion-token spend does not consistently increase with the proxy after accounting for formula length and censoring. At 16k, the reasoning model spends more on proof-easy matched formulas and exhausts its budget on the solver-easiest UNSAT family; the 32k C1 gap is absent. These scoped dissociations concern verdict accuracy and observed token spend, not certificate solving, exact proof length, or allocation efficiency.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

When Top-1 Fails: Calibrating LoRA Monitors for Masked Diffusion LMs

Discrete diffusion language model (DLM) fine-tuning inherits inexpensive diagnostics from denoising-time confidence monitors, but their PEFT-training meaning is untested. We test top-1 argmax concentration as a collapse warning. Across 816 LoRA/PEFT configurations from three DLM families, the warning fires for every configuration while logs record 0/816 actual collapses at the 200 step horizon, giving zero precision. The cause is pre-equilibrium saturation: top-1 concentration is already high before optimization and quickly becomes insensitive to final training stability. We then evaluate max LoRA gradient norm, a parameter-side signal that samples gradient routing rather than token concentration. On a pooled held-out LLaDA-family split, a train-optimized threshold identifies top-decile final-loss configurations with precision 0.68 and F1=0.79, above the all-positive top-1 baseline even at the lower split-bootstrap confidence bound. Autoregressive controls and cross-family threshold failures bound the result to short-horizon DLM-LoRA inspection rather than a universal collapse detector. Workflow: drop top-1 as a PEFT alarm, log max-gradient early in training, and calibrate thresholds per DLM family before routing runs for inspection.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Weight Decay Regimes in Grokking Transformers: Cheap Online Diagnostics

Transformers trained on modular arithmetic exhibit sharp transitions between memorization, generalization, and collapse. We show that weight decay acts as a scalar empirical control parameter for these regimes, and introduce two cheap online diagnostics, mean pairwise attention-head cosine similarity and entropy standard deviation, that track training dynamics from attention activations alone and complement loss-landscape diagnostics at lower compute cost. Across eleven experimental conditions and three model scales (0.82M to 85M parameters), the weight-decay axis separates memorization, developmental grokking, and collapse. A near-transition logistic fit localizes the memorization-to-developmental boundary at $\lambda_c=0.0158$ (95% CI [0.0109, 0.0200], N=210); a power-law fit gives an empirical exponent $\nu=0.757$ (CI [0.725, 0.799]). Reference exponents $\nu=1/2$ and 3D Ising $\nu \approx 0.63$ lie outside this empirical CI under our four-bin grid, so we report $\nu$ as empirical and defer universality-class identification to denser finite-size-scaling work. A horizon-matched multi-task replication (n=280, four modular operations) preserves the weight-decay control pattern; a paired attention-head re-initialization experiment at $\lambda=0.05$ changes Phase-2 amplitude (Cohen's $d=-1.190$, n=10, $p_t=4.5 \times 10^{-3}$), while matched weight-norm clipping does not. Three cross-architecture probes (4L MLP, 4L LSTM, and 4L Mamba; each n=70) replicate the weight-decay-controlled transition with architecture-specific $\lambda_c$ values. Main diagnostic claims are scoped to modular arithmetic in small transformer attention models; the non-attention experiments are scope probes, and architecture-wide, language-model, and universality-class claims are out of scope.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

When Does Removing LayerNorm Help? Activation Bounding as a Regime-Dependent Implicit Regularizer

Dynamic Tanh (DyT) removes LayerNorm by bounding activations with a learned tanh(alpha x). We show that this bounding is a regime-dependent implicit regularizer, not a uniformly beneficial replacement. Across GPT-2-family models spanning 64M to 3.78B parameters and 1M to 118M tokens, with Llama and ViT cross-checks, DyT improves validation loss by 27.3% at 64M/1M but worsens it by 18.8% at 64M/118M; the 1M benefit vanishes with capacity (+1.7% at 3.78B), while the 118M penalty reaches +27.9%. The mechanism is measurable: 49% of DyT activations saturate at 1M versus 23% at 118M, and a 500-step saturation heuristic classifies DyT's sign with 75% raw in-sample accuracy on the 12-cell GPT-2 calibration set (AUC 0.75; 64% when adding Scale 5 stress cells), correctly labels 3/3 Llama checks, but only reaches 50% raw leave-one-scale-out accuracy. Three interventions support the bounding explanation: HardTanh reproduces the regime pattern, increasing alpha at 118M monotonically reduces DyT's penalty, and vanilla+dropout(p=0.5) matches DyT's data-rich loss. We also localize Llama-DyT collapse to SwiGLU gating, where saturation separates collapse from convergence in a 3-seed component ablation (r=0.94). Scope: all experiments are compute-limited (T/P < 1.84), below Chinchilla-optimal training.

cs.LG↗