跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-15 06:43 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-14 07:33 — 2026-11-15 07:33(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-15 06:43最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,729 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-15 06:42(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2511.21622

On the Origin of Algorithmic Progress in AI: Evidence from Language Model Pre-Training

Hans Gundlach, Alex Fogelson, Jayson Lynch, Ana Trisovic, Jonathan Rosenfeld, Anmol Sandhu, Neil Thompson

原文摘要

Algorithms have been estimated to increase AI pretraining FLOP efficiency by a factor of 22,000 between 2012 and 2023 (Ho et al., 2024). Running ablation experiments on key innovations from this time period, we are able to account for less than 10x of these gains at small compute scales. Surveying the broader literature, we estimate that additional innovations not included in our ablations also account for less than 10x, yielding less than 100x efficiency gains total in low-compute regimes. This leads us to conduct scaling experiments, which provide evidence that the efficiency gap can be explained by algorithms with scale-dependent efficiency improvements. In particular, we conduct scaling experiments between LSTMs and Transformers, finding evidence for exponent differences in their compute-optimal scaling law while finding little scaling difference for many other innovations. These experiments demonstrate that, contrary to standard assumptions, an algorithm's efficiency gains are tied to compute scale. Using experimental scaling extrapolations and literature estimates, we can account for the majority of efficiency gains over the same time period. Our results indicate that algorithmic progress at smaller training compute levels has been far slower than previously assumed, and that measures of algorithmic efficiency are strongly reference-dependent.

cs.LG · cs.AI

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02650

ETH is Dead, Long Live SH

MIT Hardness Group, Josh Brunner, Erik D. Demaine, Fabian Frei, Timothy Gomez, Markus Hecher, Jeffery Li, Jayson Lynch

原文摘要

Impagliazzo and Paturi's 1999 Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH) is false, but Stearns and Hunt's 1990 Satisfiability Hypothesis (SH) remains plausible. We prove that SH is equivalent to the recently proposed Weak ETH which rules out $O(2^{n^{1-\varepsilon}})L^{O(1)}$-time 3SAT algorithms for every constant $\varepsilon>0$, where $L$ is the input length. We show that SH (or Weak ETH) preserves the typical process for lower bounds: a polynomial-time reduction from a 3SAT formula of size $s=Θ(n+m)$ to an instance of size $N\le s^{b+o(1)}$, for fixed blowup exponent $b>0$, rules out $O(2^{N^{1/b-\varepsilon}})$-time algorithms for every constant $\varepsilon>0$. By comparison, for an $N=O(s^b)$ blowup, ETH would have ruled out $2^{o(N^{1/b})}$-time algorithms. The framework also yields parameterized lower bounds ruling out running times of the form $O(2^{k^{1/b-\varepsilon}})L^{O(1)}$. We also prove equivalence of the analogous counting hypotheses, #SH and Weak #ETH, and that they rule out $O(2^{(n+m)^{1-\varepsilon}})$-time algorithms for #2SAT for every constant $\varepsilon>0$.

cs.CC