arXiv subjects

Yong Yi Bay

Publications and source records attributed to Yong Yi Bay.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

GRPO, Dr. GRPO, and DAPO Are Three Operations on One Number: The Group-Standard-Deviation Identity

Three of the most popular methods for training language models to reason look like three different tricks. They are not. All three adjust a single number: standard deviation, reflecting how much a prompt's sampled answers disagree. When such a model is trained, it answers each problem many times, and an automatic checker marks every answer right or wrong. The standard deviation of those marks measures the disagreement: largest when the answers split evenly between right and wrong, and zero when they all agree. Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) divides by this number, GRPO Done Right (Dr. GRPO) drops the division, and Decoupled Clip and Dynamic Sampling Policy Optimization (DAPO) discards the groups where it is zero. Each is presented as its own fix, yet this paper proves they are three settings of one dial. That dial is not cosmetic: for right-or-wrong rewards, the disagreement is exactly the size of the training update, the group-standard-deviation identity. A split group teaches the most, while a unanimous group teaches nothing and falls silent. The same result says which problems deserve the most weight and how many tries each one needs. This paper confirms the intuition on a large real difficulty dataset (Big-Math) and in a controlled training run. What looks like a harmless normalization step is the dial that decides where learning happens and how strongly.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

When More Sampling Hurts: The Modal Ceiling and Correlation Ceiling of Test-Time Scaling

People overthink; language models over-sample, and the extra effort can talk both into a worse answer. Reasoning systems answer a hard question by sampling it many times (test-time scaling), and the more they draw, the more often a correct answer turns up somewhere, so coverage, the fraction of problems with at least one correct try, climbs and appears to be progress. But a deployed system must return one answer, and choosing it, not knowing which try is right, is selection; selection is capped, and past a point extra samples only make the model surer of a confident mistake, even as every draw adds cost. The gap between climbing coverage and stalled selection, the identifiability gap, is the answer a model can produce but not pick. So the real question is not whether to sample but how far, and the answer is: not far. For picking an answer, the vote has already settled within a few dozen draws, the modal ceiling; for scoring a benchmark, sooner still, the correlation ceiling. Beyond that, extra draws cost compute and add nothing, and can even make the answer worse. This paper turns the cutoff into a single number, the effective number of samples, that any sampling run already reveals. The bottleneck is recognizing a right answer, not generating one.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

No 3D Matrices: A Unified Tensor-Product View of Matrix-Free Cartesian PDE Solvers

Every Cartesian three-dimensional PDE solver hides a structural secret that production CFD codes have used for half a century and that graduate-level textbooks rarely state plainly. The derivative matrices, the compact Padé line solves, the Galerkin mass inversions, the alternating-direction-implicit substeps, and even the fast Poisson and Helmholtz diagonalization transforms all factor along the coordinate axes and collapse into repeated one-dimensional banded kernels executed along the grid lines. The three-dimensional operator exists only on paper; it is never assembled, factored, or stored. This paper is the manual for that collapse. We derive the Kronecker-product algebra that makes it exact, carry it cleanly through central differences, compact schemes, tensor-product Galerkin, B-spline and isogeometric methods, collocation, ADI time stepping, and direct Poisson and Helmholtz solves, and bring into the open the three production tricks that turn the reduction into hardware-conscious floating-point throughput on real machines: the multi-right-hand-side reshape that exposes a sweep as one batched line kernel (a dense BLAS-3 GEMM when the line factor is dense or element-local, a banded or stencil kernel when it is not), the sum factorization that rescues high-order Galerkin from the $O(p^{2d})$ quadrature trap, and the pencil decomposition that keeps every direction contiguous across an MPI cluster. For fixed stencil width or fixed polynomial degree, the compute cost stays $O(N)$ in the total number of unknowns $N = N_x N_y N_z$; the operator storage drops to $O(N_x + N_y + N_z)$ up to bandwidth constants; direct separable Poisson and Helmholtz solvers add the expected transform cost; the line kernels are embarrassingly parallel. These facts are familiar to practitioners but rarely assembled in one place; this paper collects them and shows how to use them.

math.NA↗

arXiv2026

Solve for the Hyperparameter, Skip the Search: Kolmogorov-Optimal Scaling Laws for Spline Regression

Hyperparameter tuning almost always means search: fit the model at every value on a grid, score each by cross-validation, and keep the winner. For spline regression that search is unnecessary. The optimal resolution can be solved for in closed form, to the accuracy an exhaustive search reaches, at a fraction of the compute. Three ingredients make this possible: classical approximation theory pins the squared bias to a known power of the resolution G, exactly the Kolmogorov n-width of the smoothness class; the basis dimension is an explicit polynomial in G; and leave-one-out error follows from a single fit via the PRESS identity. Balancing the two known curves gives the minimizer analytically. We extend this calculus to many coordinates by replacing ambient input dimension with interaction order, the number of active low-order components in an ANOVA decomposition, yielding a scaling law in which the optimal resolution and error are power functions of the effective density (sample size per active component), with input dimension absent from the exponent. The law becomes an algorithm. KORE (Kolmogorov-optimal Order-aware Resolution Estimation) fits two pilot resolutions, solves a leverage-calibrated 2x2 system for the bias and noise scales, and evaluates the closed-form plug-in resolution with a tiny leave-one-out certificate: about a dozen fits instead of a full grid sweep, with a consistency guarantee as the sample grows. Across additive and sparse pairwise targets up to 80 input dimensions, KORE matches exhaustive 3-fold cross-validation and the full classical ladder (GCV, Mallows' Cp, AIC, BIC) while fitting roughly 8x fewer models; on 36 real tabular datasets it ranks first among 21 methods in accuracy per unit of compute, ahead of tuned boosters and kernel machines. When complexity lives in low interaction order, solving for the resolution beats searching for it.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Machine Learning vs Deep Learning: The Generalization Problem

The capacity to generalize beyond the range of training data is a pivotal challenge, often synonymous with a model's utility and robustness. This study investigates the comparative abilities of traditional machine learning (ML) models and deep learning (DL) algorithms in terms of extrapolation -- a more challenging aspect of generalization because it requires the model to make inferences about data points that lie outside the domain it has been trained on. We present an empirical analysis where both ML and DL models are trained on an exponentially growing function and then tested on values outside the training domain. The choice of this function allows us to distinctly showcase the divergence in performance when models are required to predict beyond the scope of their training data. Our findings suggest that deep learning models possess inherent capabilities to generalize beyond the training scope, an essential feature for real-world applications where data is often incomplete or extends beyond the observed range. This paper argues for a nuanced understanding of the structural differences between ML and DL models, with an emphasis on the implications for both theoretical research and practical deployment.

cs.LG↗