







Deep double descent: where bigger models and more data hurt* , Nakkiran, Preetum, Kaplun, Gal, Bansal, Yamini, Yang, Tristan, Barak, Boaz, Sutskever, Ilya
What the Books Get Wrong about AI [Double Descent]
Open Models Inference for Coding · Umans AI
Hosted Kimi K3, GLM 5.2, and DeepSeek V4 Flash. Pay per token, on infrastructure we own.

DR Tulu: An open, end-to-end training recipe for long-form deep research | Ai2
We introduce Deep Research Tulu (DR Tulu), an open post-training recipe and framework for long-form deep research agents.

The Future of Meta Superintelligence: A 1 Year Progress Update
A top tier RL environment startup spawns out of thin air, the most aggressive compute ramp we've ever seen, 2000km+ scale-across, and some advice for Google DeepMind

A Short Guide to Data Strikes and Conscious Data Contribution in the Context of 2026 Frontier AI
Back to the basics of data leverage.

Deep Learning on a Data Diet: Finding Important Examples Early in Training
Recent success in deep learning has partially been driven by training increasingly overparametrized networks on ever larger datasets. It is therefore natural to ask: how much of the data is superfluous, which examples are important for generalization, and how do we find them? In this work, we make the striking observation that, in standard vision datasets, simple scores averaged over several weight initializations can be used to identify important examples very early in training. We propose two such scores—the Gradient Normed (GraNd) and the Error L2-Norm (EL2N) scores—and demonstrate their efficacy on a range of architectures and datasets by pruning significant fractions of training data without sacrificing test accuracy. In fact, using EL2N scores calculated a few epochs into training, we can prune half of the CIFAR10 training set while slightly improving test accuracy. Furthermore, for a given dataset, EL2N scores from one architecture or hyperparameter configuration generalize to other configurations. Compared to recent work that prunes data by discarding examples that are rarely forgotten over the course of training, our scores use only local information early in training. We also use our scores to detect noisy examples and study training dynamics through the lens of important examples—we investigate how the data distribution shapes the loss surface and identify subspaces of the model’s data representation that are relatively stable over training.
From BF16 to Bits That Matter: How ShapeLearn Optimizes Llama and Qwen
ByteShape's first public release of ShapeLearn-quantized models.
Is Model Collapse Inevitable? Breaking the Curse of Recursion by Accumulating Real and Synthetic Data
The proliferation of generative models, combined with pretraining on web-scale data, raises a timely question: what happens when these models are trained on their own generated outputs? Recent investigations into model-data feedback loops proposed that such loops would lead to a phenomenon termed model collapse, under which performance progressively degrades with each model-data feedback iteration until fitted models become useless. However, those studies largely assumed that new data replace old data over time, where an arguably more realistic assumption is that data accumulate over time. In this paper, we ask: what effect does accumulating data have on model collapse? We empirically study this question by pretraining sequences of language models on text corpora. We confirm that replacing the original real data by each generation's synthetic data does indeed tend towards model collapse, then demonstrate that accumulating the successive generations of synthetic data alongside the original real data avoids model collapse; these results hold across a range of model sizes, architectures, and hyperparameters. We obtain similar results for deep generative models on other types of real data: diffusion models for molecule conformation generation and variational autoencoders for image generation. To understand why accumulating data can avoid model collapse, we use an analytically tractable framework introduced by prior work in which a sequence of linear models are fit to the previous models' outputs. Previous work used this framework to show that if data are replaced, the test error increases with the number of model-fitting iterations; we extend this argument to prove that if data instead accumulate, the test error has a finite upper bound independent of the number of iterations, meaning model collapse no longer occurs.

Is Model Collapse Inevitable? Breaking the Curse of Recursion by Accumulating Real and Synthetic Data
The proliferation of generative models, combined with pretraining on web-scale data, raises a timely question: what happens when these models are trained on their own generated outputs? Recent investigations into model-data feedback loops proposed that such loops would lead to a phenomenon termed model collapse, under which performance progressively degrades with each model-data feedback iteration until fitted models become useless. However, those studies largely assumed that new data replace old data over time, where an arguably more realistic assumption is that data accumulate over time. In this paper, we ask: what effect does accumulating data have on model collapse? We empirically study this question by pretraining sequences of language models on text corpora. We confirm that replacing the original real data by each generation's synthetic data does indeed tend towards model collapse, then demonstrate that accumulating the successive generations of synthetic data alongside the original real data avoids model collapse; these results hold across a range of model sizes, architectures, and hyperparameters. We obtain similar results for deep generative models on other types of real data: diffusion models for molecule conformation generation and variational autoencoders for image generation. To understand why accumulating data can avoid model collapse, we use an analytically tractable framework introduced by prior work in which a sequence of linear models are fit to the previous models' outputs. Previous work used this framework to show that if data are replaced, the test error increases with the number of model-fitting iterations; we extend this argument to prove that if data instead accumulate, the test error has a finite upper bound independent of the number of iterations, meaning model collapse no longer occurs.

Yann LeCun's $1B Bet Against LLMs [Part 1]
The State of Open Models
Sebastian Raschka on Twitter / X
While waiting for DeepSeek V4 we got two very strong open-weight LLMs from India yesterday.There are two size flavors, Sarvam 30B and Sarvam 105B model (both reasoning models).Interestingly, the smaller 30B model uses “classic” Grouped Query Attention (GQA), whereas the… https://t.co/OiJVkDCYNz pic.twitter.com/0uqmLxofRE— Sebastian Raschka (@rasbt) March 7, 2026

Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empirically
Deep learning (DL) creates impactful advances following a virtuous recipe: model architecture search, creating large training data sets, and scaling computation. It is widely believed that growing training sets and models should improve accuracy and result in better products. As DL application domains grow, we would like a deeper understanding of the relationships between training set size, computational scale, and model accuracy improvements to advance the state-of-the-art. This paper presents a large scale empirical characterization of generalization error and model size growth as training sets grow. We introduce a methodology for this measurement and test four machine learning domains: machine translation, language modeling, image processing, and speech recognition. Our empirical results show power-law generalization error scaling across a breadth of factors, resulting in power-law exponents---the "steepness" of the learning curve---yet to be explained by theoretical work. Further, model improvements only shift the error but do not appear to affect the power-law exponent. We also show that model size scales sublinearly with data size. These scaling relationships have significant implications on deep learning research, practice, and systems. They can assist model debugging, setting accuracy targets, and decisions about data set growth. They can also guide computing system design and underscore the importance of continued computational scaling.

1/7 Proud to share our paper, accepted as an oral at ICML '26! We highlight how Big Tech’s influence on AI R&D drives damaging outcomes, and what we as researchers can do about it. We also discuss underlying economic causes. See link for paper, and below for a brief summary arxiv.org/abs/2512.03077
1/7 Proud to share our paper, accepted as an oral at ICML '26! We highlight how Big Tech’s influence on AI R&D drives damaging outcomes, and what we as researchers can do about it. We also discuss underlying economic causes. See link for paper, and below for a brief summary arxiv.org/abs/2512.03077
Ever thought we acquire generalizable knowledge by discarding details and compressing our experiences? In a new BBS paper, @sabinasloman.bsky.social and I argue otherwise, proposing a novel way of studying human learning inspired by double descent in ML. Disagree? Propose a commentary by May 15 :)