Tootfinder

A Formal Framework for Fluency-based Multi-Reference Evaluation in Grammatical Error Correction
Eitan Klinger, Zihao Huang, Tran Minh Nguyen, Emma Jayeon Park, Yige Chen, Yang Gu, Qingyu Gao, Siliang Liu, Mengyang Qiu, Jungyeul Park
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.06749

A Formal Framework for Fluency-based Multi-Reference Evaluation in Grammatical Error Correction
Evaluating grammatical error correction requires metrics that reflect the diversity of valid human corrections rather than privileging a single reference. Existing frameworks, largely edit-based and English-centric, rely on rigid alignments between system and reference edits, limiting their applicability in multilingual and generative settings. This paper introduces a formal framework for \textit{fluency-based multi-reference evaluation}, framing $n$-gram similarity as an aggregation problem ov…

Spin-wave propagation at low temperatures in YIG thin films on YSGG substrates
Jos\'e Elias Abr\~ao, Daan Weltens, Rhodri Mansell, Sebastiaan van Dijken, Luk\'a\v{s} Flaj\v{s}man
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04330

Spin-wave propagation at low temperatures in YIG thin films on YSGG substrates
The use of spin waves in magnetic thin films at cryogenic temperatures has long been hindered by the lack of a suitable material platform. Yttrium iron garnet (YIG) is the leading candidate, yet it is typically grown on gadolinium gallium garnet (GGG) substrates, which develop a large paramagnetic moment at low temperatures. This substrate effect limits spin-wave propagation. In this work, we demonstrate that thin YIG films grown on yttrium scandium gallium garnet (YSGG) substrates support robu…

How popular media gets love wrong
Now a bit of background about why I have this "engineered" model of love:
First, I'm a white straight cis man. I've got a few traits that might work against my relationship chances (e.g., neurodivergence; I generally fit pretty well into the "weird geek" stereotype), but as I was recently reminded, it's possible my experience derives more from luck than other factors, and since things are tilted more in my favor than most people on the planet, my advice could be worse than useless if it leads people towards strategies that would only have worked for someone like me. I don't *think* that's the case, but it's worth mentioning explicitly.
When I first started dating my now-wife, we were both in graduate school. I was 26, and had exactly zero dating/romantic experience though that point in my life. In other words, a pretty stereotypical "incel" although I definitely didn't subscribe to incel ideology at all. I felt lonely, and vaguely wanted a romantic relationship (I'm neither aromantic nor asexual), but had never felt socially comfortable enough to pursue one before. I don't drink and dislike most social gatherings like parties or bars; I mostly hung around the fringes of the few college parties I attended, and although I had a reasonable college social life in terms of friends, I didn't really do anything to pursue romance, feeling too awkward to know where to start. I had the beginnings of crushes in both high school and college, but never developed a really strong crush, probably correlated with not putting myself in many social situations outside of close all-male friend gatherings. I never felt remotely comfortable enough to act on any of the proto-crushes I did have. I did watch porn and masturbate, so one motivation for pursuing a relationship was physical intimacy, but loneliness was as much of a motivating factor, and of course the social pressure to date was a factor too, even though I'm quite contrarian.
When I first started dating my now-wife, we were both in graduate school. I was 26, and had exactly zero dating/romantic experience though that point in my life. In other words, a pretty stereotypical "incel" although I definitely didn't subscribe to incel ideology at all. I felt lonely, and vaguely wanted a romantic relationship (I'm neither aromantic nor asexual), but had never felt socially comfortable enough to pursue one before. I don't drink and dislike most social gatherings like parties or bars; I mostly hung around the fringes of the few college parties I attended, and although I had a reasonable college social life in terms of friends, I didn't really do anything to pursue romance, feeling too awkward to know where to start. I had the beginnings of crushes in both high school and college, but never developed a really strong crush, probably correlated with not putting myself in many social situations outside of close all-male friend gatherings. I never felt remotely comfortable enough to act on any of the proto-crushes I did have. I did watch porn and masturbate, so one motivation for pursuing a relationship was physical intimacy, but loneliness was as much of a motivating factor, and of course the social pressure to date was a factor too, even though I'm quite contrarian.
I'm lucky in that I had some mixed-gender social circles already like intramural soccer and a graduate-student housing potluck. Graduate school makes a *lot* more of these social spaces accessible, so I recognize that those not in school of some sort have a harder time of things, especially if like me they don't feel like they fit in in typical adult social spaces like bars.
However, at one point I just decided that my desire for a relationship would need action on my part and so I'd try to build a relationship and see what happened. I worked up my courage and asked one of the people in my potluck if she'd like to go for a hike (pretty much clearly a date but not explicitly one; in retrospect not the best first-date modality in a lot of ways, but it made a little more sense in our setting where we could go for a hike from our front door). To emphasize this point: I was not in love with (or even infatuated with) my now-wife at that point. I made a decision to be open to building a relationship, but didn't follow the typical romance story formula beyond that. Now of course, in real life as opposed to popular media, this isn't anything special. People ask each other out all the time just because they're lonely, and some of those relationships turn out fine (although many do not).
I was lucky in that some aspects of who I am and what I do happened to be naturally comforting to my wife (natural advantage in the "appeal" model of love) but of course there are some aspects of me that annoy my wife, and we negotiate that. In the other direction, there's some things I instantly liked about my wife, and other things that still annoy me. We've figured out how to accept a little, change a little, and overall be happy with each other (though we do still have arguments; it's not like the operation/construction/maintenance of the "love mechanism" is always perfectly smooth). In particular though, I approached the relationship with the attitude of "I want to try to build a relationship with this person," at first just because of my own desires for *any* relationship, and then gradually more and more through my desire to build *this specific* relationship as I enjoyed the rewards of companionship.
So for example, while I think my wife is objectively beautiful, she's also *subjectively* very beautiful *to me* because having decided to build a relationship with her, I actively tried to see her as beautiful, rather than trying to judge whether I wanted a relationship with her based on her beauty. In other words, our relationship is more causative of her beauty-to-me than her beauty-to-me is causative of our relationship. This is the biggest way I think the "engineered" model of love differs from the "fire" and "appeal" models: you can just decide to build love independent of factors we typically think of as engendering love (NOT independent of your partner's willingness to participate, of course), and then all of those things like "thinking your partner is beautiful" can be a result of the relationship you're building. For sure those factors might affect who is willing to try building a relationship with you in the first place, but if more people were willing to jump into relationship building (not necessarily with full commitment from the start) without worrying about those other factors, they might find that those factors can come out of the relationship instead of being prerequisites for it. I think this is the biggest failure of the "appeal" model in particular: yes you *do* need to do things that appeal to your partner, but it's not just "make myself lovable" it's also: is your partner putting in the effort to see the ways that you are beautiful/lovable/etc., or are they just expecting you to become exactly some perfect person they've imagined (and/or been told to desire by society)? The former is perfectly possible, and no less satisfying than the latter.
To cut off my rambling a bit here, I'll just add that in our progress from dating through marriage through staying-married, my wife and I have both talked at times explicitly about commitment, and especially when deciding to get married, I told her that I knew I couldn't live up to the perfect model of a husband that I'd want to be, but that if she wanted to deepen our commitment, I was happy to do that, and so we did. I also rearranged my priorities at that point, deciding that I knew I wanted to prioritize this relationship above things like my career or my research interests, and while I've not always been perfect at that in my little decisions, I've been good at holding to that in my big decisions at least. In the end, *once we had built a somewhat-committed relationship*, we had something that we both recognized was worth more than most other things in life, and that let us commit even more, thus getting even more out of it in the long term. Obviously you can't start the first date with an expectation of life-long commitment, and you need to synchronize your increasing commitment to a relationship so that it doesn't become lopsided, which is hard. But if you take the commitment as an active decision and as the *precursor* to things like infatuation, attraction, etc., you can build up to something that's incredibly strong and rewarding.
I'll follow this up with one more post trying to distill some advice from my ramblings.
#relationships #love

At some point, DOPs should stop going for even shallower depth of field or even weirder anamorphic lens distortion. I'm feeling like an old guy complaining about how "you can't see anything on the screen! It's too dark". Only I'm like "nothing is in focus anymore you doofuses!"
Yes, this is a subtoot about #Brick on

Addressing requirements for crosstalk-free quantum-gate operation in many-body nanofiber cavity QED systems
Tim Keller, Seigo Kikura, Rui Asaoka, Yasunari Suzuki, Yuuki Tokunaga, Takao Aoki
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08408

Addressing requirements for crosstalk-free quantum-gate operation in many-body nanofiber cavity QED systems
A distributed network architecture in which flying photons connect individual modules containing stationary atomic qubits is a promising approach for scaling up neutral-atom based quantum-computing platforms. We consider an all-fiber based platform consisting of nanofiber cavity QED systems interconnected via conventional optical fibers. Each nanofiber cavity is strongly coupled to multiple atoms through its evanescent field, and atom pairs within one cavity (local) or two distant cavities (rem…

A 66-Gb/s/5.5-W RISC-V Many-Core Cluster for 5G Software-Defined Radio Uplinks
Marco Bertuletti, Yichao Zhang, Alessandro Vanelli-Coralli, Luca Benini
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06176

A 66-Gb/s/5.5-W RISC-V Many-Core Cluster for 5G+ Software-Defined Radio Uplinks
Following the scale-up of new radio (NR) complexity in 5G and beyond, the physical layer's computing load on base stations is increasing under a strictly constrained latency and power budget; base stations must process > 20-Gb/s uplink wireless data rate on the fly, in < 10 W. At the same time, the programmability and reconfigurability of base station components are the key requirements; it reduces the time and cost of new networks' deployment, it lowers the acceptance threshold for industry pl…

Isotopy versus equivariant isotopy in dimensions three and higher
Trent Lucas
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.11104 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.11104

Isotopy versus equivariant isotopy in dimensions three and higher
Given a finite group action on a smooth manifold, we study the following question: if two equivariant diffeomorphisms are isotopic, must they be equivariantly isotopic? Birman-Hilden and Maclachlan-Harvey proved the answer is "yes" for most surfaces. By contrast, we give a general criterion in higher dimensions under which there are many equivariant diffeomorphisms which are isotopic but not equivariantly isotopic. Examples satisfying this criterion include branched covers of split links and "s…

Geometric Analysis of Magnetic Labyrinthine Stripe Evolution via U-Net Segmentation
Vin\'icius Yu Okubo, Kotaro Shimizu, B. S. Shivaran, Gia-Wei Chern, Hae Yong Kim
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11485

Geometric Analysis of Magnetic Labyrinthine Stripe Evolution via U-Net Segmentation
Labyrinthine stripe patterns are common in many physical systems, yet their lack of long-range order makes quantitative characterization challenging. We investigate the evolution of such patterns in bismuth-doped yttrium iron garnet (Bi:YIG) films subjected to a magnetic field annealing protocol. A U-Net deep learning model, trained with synthetic degradations including additive white Gaussian and Simplex noise, enables robust segmentation of experimental magneto-optical images despite noise an…

It's time to lower your inhibitions towards just asking a human the answer to your question.
In the early nineties, effectively before the internet, that's how you learned a lot of stuff. Your other option was to look it up in a book. I was a kid then, so I asked my parents a lot of questions.
Then by ~2000 or a little later, it started to feel almost rude to do this, because Google was now a thing, along with Wikipedia. "Let me Google that for you" became a joke website used to satirize the poor fool who would waste someone's time answering a random question. There were some upsides to this, as well as downsides. I'm not here to judge them.
At this point, Google doesn't work any more for answering random questions, let alone more serous ones. That era is over. If you don't believe it, try it yourself. Between Google intentionally making their results worse to show you more ads, the SEO cruft that already existed pre-LLMs, and the massive tsunami of SEO slop enabled by LLMs, trustworthy information is hard to find, and hard to distinguish from the slop. (I posted an example earlier: #AI #LLMs #DigitalCommons #AskAQuestion

Tesla shareholders will apparently get to vote on whether Tesla should bail out Xai/Twitter.
Do Tesla shareholders want to give Musk more money in return for Tesla owning part of his nazi AI model and his nazi troll site?
We shall see. My guess is yes! Tesla share owners will vote to dilute themselves in return for the chance to bail out the failing Twitter and Grok.
#xai #grok #twitter #tesla