Understanding the remarkable efficacy of Adam when training transformer-based language models has become a central research topic within the optimization community. To gain deeper insights, several simplifications of Adam have been proposed, such as the signed gradient and signed momentum methods. In this work, we conduct an extensive empirical study -- training over 1,500 language models across different data configurations and scales -- comparing Adam to several known simplified variants. We find that signed momentum methods are faster than SGD, but consistently underperform relative to Adam, even after careful tuning of momentum, clipping setting and learning rates. However, our analysis reveals a compelling option that preserves near-optimal performance while allowing for new insightful reformulations: constraining the Adam momentum parameters to be equal, β1 = β2. Beyond robust performance, this choice affords new theoretical insights, highlights the "secret sauce" on top of signed momentum, and grants a precise statistical interpretation: we show that Adam in this setting implements a natural online algorithm for estimating the mean and variance of gradients--one that arises from a mean-field Gaussian variational inference perspective.

The rise of parallel computing hardware has made it increasingly important to understand which nonlinear state space models can be efficiently parallelized.

Modern deep generative models can now produce high-quality synthetic samples that are often indistinguishable from real training data. A growing body of research aims to understand why recent methods, such as diffusion and flow matching techniques, generalize so effectively. Among the proposed explanations are the inductive biases of deep learning architectures and the stochastic nature of the conditional flow matching loss. In this work, we rule out the noisy nature of the loss as a key factor driving generalization in flow matching. First, we empirically show that in high-dimensional settings, the stochastic and closed-form versions of the flow matching loss yield nearly equivalent losses. Then, using state-of-the-art flow matching models on standard image datasets, we demonstrate that both variants achieve comparable statistical performance, with the surprising observation that using the closed-form can even improve performance.

Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) model estimation is a well-established strategy to rank a collection of items given a dataset of pairwise comparisons. Although the theoretical performance of BTL estimation methods, such as spectral and maximum likelihood estimation, is well studied in the regime of uniformly sampled graphs, generalizing such results to a wider class of random graphs has proved challenging. In this work, we investigate the entry-wise error of spectral algorithms against a semi-random adversary that can arbitrarily boost the sampling probabilities of certain edges. We find that the performance of the unweighted spectral method is heavily dependent on the spectral properties of the generated graph. Furthermore, we show that asymptotic performance approaching that of uniformly sampled graphs can be recovered by appropriately reweighting the observed edges to counteract the adversary and restore the spectral gap. Finally, we provide numerical simulations that support our theoretical findings.

We study the problem of selecting covariates for unbiased estimation of the total causal effect.Existing approaches typically rely on global causal structure learning over all variables, or on strong assumptions such as causal sufficiency - where observed variables share no latent confounders - or the pretreatment assumption, which limits covariates to those unaffected by the treatment or outcome. These requirements are often unrealistic in practice, and global learning becomes computationally prohibitive in high-dimensional settings.To address these challenges, we propose a novel local learning method for covariate selection in nonparametric causal effect estimation that avoids both the pretreatment and causal sufficiency assumptions. We first characterize a local boundary that contains at least one valid adjustment set whenever one exists for identifying the causal effect, and then develop local identification procedures to efficiently search within this boundary.We prove that the proposed method is sound and complete. Experiments on multiple synthetic datasets and two real-world datasets show that our approach achieves accurate causal effect estimation while substantially improving computational efficiency.

Multi Armed Bandit (MAB) algorithms are a cornerstone of reinforcement learning and have been studied both theoretically and numerically. One of the most commonly used implementation uses a softmax mapping to prescribe the optimal policy and served as the foundation for downstream algorithms, including REINFORCE. Distinct from vanilla approaches, we consider here the L2 regularized softmax policy gradient where a quadratic term is subtracted from the mean reward. Previous studies exploiting convexity failed to identify a suitable theoretical framework to analyze its convergence when the regularization parameter vanishes. We prove here theoretical convergence results and confirm empirically that this regime makes the L2 regularization numerically advantageous on standard benchmarks.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Figure 1: (a) Precision (blue) and recall (orange) for Figure 2: (a) Real data covers five modes (1-5) and several neighborhood sizes k. Both metrics were evaluated using 20k real and of varying sample count. Figure 1a illustrates the effect of varying k in the setup used in Figure 4b of the submission (truncation sweep 4 in StyleGAN, VGG-16 features, 50k samples). In general, different k yield consistent results and affect mainly the 5 saturation towards 0 or 1. Therefore, selecting k is a tradeoff between under-or overestimating the manifolds.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers for their careful reading, constructive questions and suggestions. We would very1 much like further exchanges to improve our work, but the following is our best effort within the current limits.2 First, we address questions appeared at least twice. We write P1, P2 for paragraph reference, and Rx for reviewers.3 We discuss two main motivations here: lack of graph loss, and empirical failure4 of distinguishing power.