The universe may never tell you if your choices mattered. A main theme of the nine-book sci-fi series is that sometimes you may never know the consequences of a choice you made. The universe, utterly indifferent black box that it is, "never tells us if we did right or wrong," as the character Naomi Nagata puts it in TV show. That's the line the developer of the upcoming Expanse video game has adopted as its own slogan. It's being developed by Owlcat Games, the Cyprus-based developer known for dense role-playing games like and .

Two-thirds of an octopus's neurons are in its arms--each operating independently--including the one it uses to have sex. Octopuses are clever enough to unscrew jars from the inside and throw sand at their annoying neighbors. But only a fraction of their smarts come from their doughnut-shaped brains. Over two-thirds of their roughly 500 million neurons reside in eight sucker-studded arms--a kind of distributed intelligence unique to cephalopods. Each of these powerful appendages can move in any direction and taste and feel with exquisite sensitivity.

It's stranger than you think. Somehow, information often feels like a world of 1's and 0's. The bigger picture is much weirder. More information Adding us as a Preferred Source in Google by using this link indicates that you would like to see more of our content in Google News results. Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent six days a week.

Conservative offline training is widely advocated as a safe foundation for subsequent online adaptation: if a policy stays close to well-supported behaviour, the argument goes, it is less likely to exploit imperfections in a learned reward model. We challenge this intuition empirically and mechanistically. We train a Qwen3-14B policy under Direct Preference Optimisation (DPO) with three levels of conservatism ($β\in \{β_{\mathrm{lo}}, β_{\mathrm{mid}}, β_{\mathrm{hi}}\}$ derived from empirical log-ratio percentiles), then adapt each checkpoint online against a learned reward ensemble (3\,$\times$\,Qwen3-1.7B) while measuring true performance on GSM8K exact-answer accuracy. We find that \emph{higher offline conservatism monotonically increases reward-hacking damage}, measured by the Goodhart gap and its area under the curve (AUGC), with Spearman $ρ= 1.0$ across all three conditions. Mechanistic analysis reveals a three-link causal chain: (i) high-$β$ DPO compresses policy entropy, (ii) Low-entropy policies generate responses with reduced diversity, concentrating in a narrow region of the reward model's training distribution (lower pairwise cosine distance), and (iii) despite this proximity, ensemble disagreement (epistemic uncertainty) increases with $β$ and is exploited faster during online optimisation. We further fit a power-law curve to the $(β, \augc)$ data and identify a practical optimal conservatism level $β^{\star}$ that balances alignment fidelity against hacking vulnerability. Our results suggest that the field needs \emph{calibrated}, not \emph{maximal}, conservatism.

We prove a single algebraic mixed coincidence identity that unifies a broad swath of information-theoretic variational results. For any family of priors $\{π_i\}$ and real exponents $\{ α_i \}$, the log of the mixed count $E_{x\simν}\!\left[\prod_{i=1}^W π_i^{α_i}(x)\right]$ is simultaneously a Boltzmann coincidence weight, an exponential-family normalizer, a maximum-entropy value, and a KL-barycenter optimum. The identity yields a unified derivation of classical cornerstones of information theory: concentration of empirical distributions (Sanov-type decompositions and Gibbs conditioning), hypothesis-testing error exponents (Chernoff information and its multi-way analogue), change-of-measure inequalities (Donsker-Varadhan and PAC-Bayes), and laws governing rare-pattern coincidences (Erdos-Renyi run-length, iterative guesswork, rate-distortion, and birthday thresholds). Each is recovered as a specialization of the same algebraic equality. It strictly generalizes the classical Renyi entropy and divergence variational formulas (one and two priors respectively) to a $W$-prior simplex, and holds for unnormalized and continuum-indexed priors. Among its consequences are an exact multi-prior PAC-Bayes penalty that subtracts an explicit "coincidence bonus" from the usual single-prior posterior penalty, and the asymptotic MAP error exponent for $W$-ary hypothesis testing as an edge-restricted simplex optimum. We demonstrate the calculus at scale on two large alphabets encoding richly modeled sequential languages: on language-model next-token predictives where we recover contrastive decoding, and on human genomic regulatory sequence where it separates correlated from diverse prior families along a sliding-window trace.

We present a universal theoretical framework for understanding long-context language modeling based on a bipartite mutual information scaling law that we rigorously verify in natural language. We demonstrate that bipartite mutual information captures multi-token interactions distinct from and scaling independently of conventional two-point mutual information, and show that this provides a more complete characterization of the dependencies needed for accurately modeling long sequences. Leveraging this scaling law, we formulate the Long-context Language Modeling (L2M) condition, which lower bounds the necessary scaling of a model's history state--the latent variables responsible for storing past information--for effective long-context modeling.

Imaging systems have traditionally been designed to mimic the human eye and produce visually interpretable measurements.

We study the problem of entropy calibration, which asks whether a language model's entropy over generations matches its log loss on human text. Past work found that models are miscalibrated, with entropy per step increasing as generations grow longer, due to error accumulation. To calibrate the model and improve text quality, it has become standard practice to truncate the distribution, but this approach reduces output diversity, which we would like to avoid. Therefore, in this paper, we ask: does miscalibration improve automatically with scale, and if not, is it theoretically possible to calibrate without tradeoffs? To build intuition, we first study a simplified theoretical setting to characterize the scaling behavior of miscalibration with respect to dataset size. We find that the rate of scaling depends on the power law exponent of the data distribution -- in particular, for a power law exponent close to 1, the scaling exponent is close to 0, meaning that miscalibration improves very slowly with scale.

Modern data analysis usually gives a prediction without showing whether the evidence behind it is clear, conflicting, or stable. Two cases can have the same fitted confidence even when one has mostly agreeing evidence and the other has strong support and strong opposition. We propose Signed Evidence Flow (SEF), which combines a fitted prediction rule with signed feature attributions to measure support, opposition, conflict, and perturbation stability. We prove that confidence determines conflict exactly when it also determines total evidence mass, derive the remaining conditional variance, and state when conflict can improve loss prediction beyond confidence and other audit variables. We also connect conflict to geometric decision fragility. Across healthcare, Covertype, black-box, finance, and ten external data sets, conflict sometimes separates risk among predictions that already appear confident. Cross-fitted tests show added error-ranking information beyond confidence and attribution entropy on several data sets, including two large finance tasks. The direction is not universal: in some tasks, lowconflict cases are riskier. We therefore introduce ScopeGate, a held-out permutation diagnostic that checks the direction before SEF is used for review triage. SEF is consequently an audit tool rather than a universal risk score: it describes evidence structure, while an independent calibration sample determines whether that structure is useful in the target population.

The rapid development of LLMs has raised concerns about their potential misuse, leading to various watermarking schemes that typically offer high detectability. However, existing watermarking techniques often face trade-off between watermark detectability and generated text quality. In this paper, we introduce Learning to Watermark (LTW), a novel selective watermarking framework that leverages multi-objective optimization to effectively balance these competing goals. LTW features a lightweight network that adaptively decides when to apply the watermark by analyzing sentence embeddings, token entropy, and current watermarking ratio. Training of the network involves two specifically constructed loss functions that guide the model toward Pareto-optimal solutions, thereby harmonizing watermark detectability and text quality. By integrating LTW with two baseline watermarking methods, our experimental evaluations demonstrate that LTW significantly enhances text quality without compromising detectability. Our selective watermarking approach offers a new perspective for designing watermarks for LLMs and a way to preserve high text quality for watermarks.