When evaluating stimuli reconstruction results it is tempting to assume that higher fidelity text and image generation is due to an improved understanding of the brain or more powerful signal extraction from neural recordings. However, in practice, new reconstruction methods could improve performance for at least three other reasons: learning more about the distribution of stimuli, becoming better at reconstructing text or images in general, or exploiting weaknesses in current image and/or text evaluation metrics. Here we disentangle how much of the reconstruction is due to these other factors vs. productively using the neural recordings. We introduce BrainBits, a method that uses a bottleneck to quantify the amount of signal extracted from neural recordings that is actually necessary to reproduce a method's reconstruction fidelity. We find that it takes surprisingly little information from the brain to produce reconstructions with high fidelity. In these cases, it is clear that the priors of the methods' generative models are so powerful that the outputs they produce extrapolate far beyond the neural signal they decode. Given that reconstructing stimuli can be improved independently by either improving signal extraction from the brain or by building more powerful generative models, improving the latter may fool us into thinking we are improving the former. We propose that methods should report a method-specific random baseline, a reconstruction ceiling, and a curve of performance as a function of bottleneck size, with the ultimate goal of using more of the neural recordings.

Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) has emerged as a parameter-efficient approach for fine-tuning large language models. However, conventional LoRA adapters are typically trained for a single task, limiting their applicability in real-world settings where inputs may span diverse and unpredictable domains. At inference time, existing approaches combine multiple LoRAs for improving performance on diverse tasks, while usually requiring labeled data or additional task-specific training, which is expensive at scale. In this work, we introduce LoRA on the Go (LoGo), a training-free framework that dynamically selects and merges adapters at the instance level without any additional requirements. LoGo leverages signals extracted from a single forward pass through LoRA adapters, to identify the most relevant adapters and determine their contributions on-the-fly. Across 5 NLP benchmarks, 27 datasets, and 3 model families, LoGo outperforms training-based baselines on some tasks upto a margin of 3.6% while remaining competitive on other tasks and maintaining inference throughput, highlighting its effectiveness and practicality.

The self-attention mechanism, while foundational to modern Transformer architectures, suffers from a critical inefficiency: it frequently allocates substantial attention to redundant or noisy context. Differential Attention addressed this by using subtractive attention maps for signal and noise, but its required balanced head allocation imposes rigid constraints on representational flexibility and scalability. To overcome this, we propose Grouped Differential Attention (GDA), a novel approach that introduces unbalanced head allocation between signal-preserving and noise-control groups. GDA significantly enhances signal focus by strategically assigning more heads to signal extraction and fewer to noise-control, stabilizing the latter through controlled repetition (akin to GQA). This design achieves stronger signal fidelity with minimal computational overhead. We further extend this principle to group-differentiated growth, a scalable strategy that selectively replicates only the signal-focused heads, thereby ensuring efficient capacity expansion. Through large-scale pretraining and continual training experiments, we demonstrate that moderate imbalance ratios in GDA yield substantial improvements in generalization and stability compared to symmetric baselines. Our results collectively establish that ratio-aware head allocation and selective expansion offer an effective and practical path toward designing scalable, computation-efficient Transformer architectures.

When evaluating stimuli reconstruction results it is tempting to assume that higher fidelity text and image generation is due to an improved understanding of the brain or more powerful signal extraction from neural recordings. However, in practice, new reconstruction methods could improve performance for at least three other reasons: learning more about the distribution of stimuli, becoming better at reconstructing text or images in general, or exploiting weaknesses in current image and/or text evaluation metrics. Here we disentangle how much of the reconstruction is due to these other factors vs. productively using the neural recordings. We introduce BrainBits, a method that uses a bottleneck to quantify the amount of signal extracted from neural recordings that is actually necessary to reproduce a method's reconstruction fidelity. We find that it takes surprisingly little information from the brain to produce reconstructions with high fidelity.

The present study presents a novel application for normalizing flows for domain adaptation. The study investigates the ability of flow based neural networks to improve signal extraction of $\Lambda$ Hyperons at CLAS12. Normalizing Flows can help model complex probability density functions that describe physics processes, enabling uses such as event generation. $\Lambda$ signal extraction has been improved through the use of classifier networks, but differences in simulation and data domains limit classifier performance; this study utilizes the flows for domain adaptation between Monte Carlo simulation and data. We were successful in training a flow network to transform between the latent physics space and a normal distribution. We also found that applying the flows lessened the dependence of the figure of merit on the cut on the classifier output, meaning that there was a broader range where the cut results in a similar figure of merit.

If you go to college and take a course "Machine learning 101", this might be the first example of machine learning your teacher will show you: Imagine you work for a real estate agency, and you want to predict, for how much a house will sell. You have some historical data -- you know that house A has been sold for $500 000, house B for $600 000, and house C for $550 000. You also know something about properties of the houses -- you know the size of the house in square meters, number of rooms in the house, and the year the house was build. The goal of the real estate agency is to predict, for how much a new house D will sell, given its known properties (size, age and number of rooms of the house). In ML terminology, the known properties of the house are called "features" or "indicators" (we use the term "indicators" in Signals, because this term has been historically used in trading).