We also present some additional ablation studies.

We extensively study the design space of these embeddings and highlight important design considerations.

However, FGD's dependencies across layers hinder parallel computation and can lead to inefficient resource utilization.

However, such pessimism for out-of-sample data could be too restricted and sample inefficient, as not all out-of-sample(unseen) states are not generalizable [20].

Then, we repeat the branching and bounding steps on subproblems that still have a negative lower bound. We terminate when all unstable neurons are split or all subproblems are verified.

Diffusion large language models (dLLMs) offer a promising alternative to autoregressive models, but their practical utility is severely hampered by slow, iterative sampling. We present SchED, a training-free, model-agnostic early-exit algorithm that aggregates full-span logit margins and halts decoding once a smooth, progress-dependent confidence threshold is met. We evaluated SchED on two dLLM families (Dream and LLaDA), in base and instruction-tuned variants across ten benchmarks spanning downstream tasks including multiple-choice question answering (MCQ), math, long-form QA/summarization, and translation. SchED delivers large, stable accelerations: on instruction-tuned models, it achieves $3.8$-$4.0\times$ speedups while retaining $99.8$-$100\%$ of the baseline score on average. On base models, SchED yields consistent speedup gains with $99.1$-$100\%$ performance retention, with up to $2.34\times$ under more aggressive settings. Using a conservative speed metric that heavily penalizes quality loss (QPS, $γ{=}4$), we show that SchED is robust and clearly outperforms prior confidence-based early-exit methods, which break down on long-form generation. An entropy analysis of the model's token predictions reveals that instruction tuning speeds up the decay of predictive entropy. By turning genuine confidence stabilization into computational savings, SchED makes dLLM decoding substantially more efficient.

We study the problem of online model selection in reinforcement learning, where the selector has access to a class of reinforcement learning agents and learns to adaptively select the agent with the right configuration. Our goal is to establish the improved efficiency and performance gains achieved by integrating online model selection methods into reinforcement learning training procedures. We examine the theoretical characterizations that are effective for identifying the right configuration in practice, and address three practical criteria from a theoretical perspective: 1) Efficient resource allocation, 2) Adaptation under non-stationary dynamics, and 3) Training stability across different seeds. Our theoretical results are accompanied by empirical evidence from various model selection tasks in reinforcement learning, including neural architecture selection, step-size selection, and self model selection.

Large language models (LLMs) are known to inherit and even amplify societal biases present in their pre-training corpora, threatening fairness and social trust. To address this issue, recent work has explored ``editing'' LLM parameters to mitigate social bias with model merging approaches; however, there is no empirical comparison. In this work, we empirically survey seven algorithms: Linear, Karcher Mean, SLERP, NuSLERP, TIES, DELLA, and Nearswap, applying 13 open weight models in the GPT, LLaMA, and Qwen families. We perform a comprehensive evaluation using three bias datasets (BBQ, BOLD, and HONEST) and measure the impact of these techniques on LLM performance in downstream tasks of the SuperGLUE benchmark. We find a trade-off between bias reduction and downstream performance: methods achieving greater bias mitigation degrade accuracy, particularly on tasks requiring reading comprehension and commonsense and causal reasoning. Among the merging algorithms, Linear, SLERP, and Nearswap consistently reduce bias while maintaining overall performance, with SLERP at moderate interpolation weights emerging as the most balanced choice. These results highlight the potential of model merging algorithms for bias mitigation, while indicating that excessive debiasing or inappropriate merging methods may lead to the degradation of important linguistic abilities.