Tootfinder

Opt-in global Mastodon full text search. Join the index!

@arXiv_mathRT_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-18 08:51:42

Cactus flower spaces and monodromy of Bethe vectors
Joel Kamnitzer, Leonid Rybnikov
arxiv.org/abs/2507.12829 arxiv.or…

@arXiv_csHC_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-18 09:45:51

AI as a teaching tool and learning partner
Steven Watterson, Sarah Atkinson, Elaine Murray, Andrew McDowell
arxiv.org/abs/2509.13899 arxiv.…

@tiotasram@kolektiva.social
2025-08-04 15:49:00

Should we teach vibe coding? Here's why not.
Should AI coding be taught in undergrad CS education?
1/2
I teach undergraduate computer science labs, including for intro and more-advanced core courses. I don't publish (non-negligible) scholarly work in the area, but I've got years of craft expertise in course design, and I do follow the academic literature to some degree. In other words, In not the world's leading expert, but I have spent a lot of time thinking about course design, and consider myself competent at it, with plenty of direct experience in what knowledge & skills I can expect from students as they move through the curriculum.
I'm also strongly against most uses of what's called "AI" these days (specifically, generative deep neutral networks as supplied by our current cadre of techbro). There are a surprising number of completely orthogonal reasons to oppose the use of these systems, and a very limited number of reasonable exceptions (overcoming accessibility barriers is an example). On the grounds of environmental and digital-commons-pollution costs alone, using specifically the largest/newest models is unethical in most cases.
But as any good teacher should, I constantly question these evaluations, because I worry about the impact on my students should I eschew teaching relevant tech for bad reasons (and even for his reasons). I also want to make my reasoning clear to students, who should absolutely question me on this. That inspired me to ask a simple question: ignoring for one moment the ethical objections (which we shouldn't, of course; they're very stark), at what level in the CS major could I expect to teach a course about programming with AI assistance, and expect students to succeed at a more technically demanding final project than a course at the same level where students were banned from using AI? In other words, at what level would I expect students to actually benefit from AI coding "assistance?"
To be clear, I'm assuming that students aren't using AI in other aspects of coursework: the topic of using AI to "help you study" is a separate one (TL;DR it's gross value is not negative, but it's mostly not worth the harm to your metacognitive abilities, which AI-induced changes to the digital commons are making more important than ever).
So what's my answer to this question?
If I'm being incredibly optimistic, senior year. Slightly less optimistic, second year of a masters program. Realistic? Maybe never.
The interesting bit for you-the-reader is: why is this my answer? (Especially given that students would probably self-report significant gains at lower levels.) To start with, [this paper where experienced developers thought that AI assistance sped up their work on real tasks when in fact it slowed it down] (arxiv.org/abs/2507.09089) is informative. There are a lot of differences in task between experienced devs solving real bugs and students working on a class project, but it's important to understand that we shouldn't have a baseline expectation that AI coding "assistants" will speed things up in the best of circumstances, and we shouldn't trust self-reports of productivity (or the AI hype machine in general).
Now we might imagine that coding assistants will be better at helping with a student project than at helping with fixing bugs in open-source software, since it's a much easier task. For many programming assignments that have a fixed answer, we know that many AI assistants can just spit out a solution based on prompting them with the problem description (there's another elephant in the room here to do with learning outcomes regardless of project success, but we'll ignore this over too, my focus here is on project complexity reach, not learning outcomes). My question is about more open-ended projects, not assignments with an expected answer. Here's a second study (by one of my colleagues) about novices using AI assistance for programming tasks. It showcases how difficult it is to use AI tools well, and some of these stumbling blocks that novices in particular face.
But what about intermediate students? Might there be some level where the AI is helpful because the task is still relatively simple and the students are good enough to handle it? The problem with this is that as task complexity increases, so does the likelihood of the AI generating (or copying) code that uses more complex constructs which a student doesn't understand. Let's say I have second year students writing interactive websites with JavaScript. Without a lot of care that those students don't know how to deploy, the AI is likely to suggest code that depends on several different frameworks, from React to JQuery, without actually setting up or including those frameworks, and of course three students would be way out of their depth trying to do that. This is a general problem: each programming class carefully limits the specific code frameworks and constructs it expects students to know based on the material it covers. There is no feasible way to limit an AI assistant to a fixed set of constructs or frameworks, using current designs. There are alternate designs where this would be possible (like AI search through adaptation from a controlled library of snippets) but those would be entirely different tools.
So what happens on a sizeable class project where the AI has dropped in buggy code, especially if it uses code constructs the students don't understand? Best case, they understand that they don't understand and re-prompt, or ask for help from an instructor or TA quickly who helps them get rid of the stuff they don't understand and re-prompt or manually add stuff they do. Average case: they waste several hours and/or sweep the bugs partly under the rug, resulting in a project with significant defects. Students in their second and even third years of a CS major still have a lot to learn about debugging, and usually have significant gaps in their knowledge of even their most comfortable programming language. I do think regardless of AI we as teachers need to get better at teaching debugging skills, but the knowledge gaps are inevitable because there's just too much to know. In Python, for example, the LLM is going to spit out yields, async functions, try/finally, maybe even something like a while/else, or with recent training data, the walrus operator. I can't expect even a fraction of 3rd year students who have worked with Python since their first year to know about all these things, and based on how students approach projects where they have studied all the relevant constructs but have forgotten some, I'm not optimistic seeing these things will magically become learning opportunities. Student projects are better off working with a limited subset of full programming languages that the students have actually learned, and using AI coding assistants as currently designed makes this impossible. Beyond that, even when the "assistant" just introduces bugs using syntax the students understand, even through their 4th year many students struggle to understand the operation of moderately complex code they've written themselves, let alone written by someone else. Having access to an AI that will confidently offer incorrect explanations for bugs will make this worse.
To be sure a small minority of students will be able to overcome these problems, but that minority is the group that has a good grasp of the fundamentals and has broadened their knowledge through self-study, which earlier AI-reliant classes would make less likely to happen. In any case, I care about the average student, since we already have plenty of stuff about our institutions that makes life easier for a favored few while being worse for the average student (note that our construction of that favored few as the "good" students is a large part of this problem).
To summarize: because AI assistants introduce excess code complexity and difficult-to-debug bugs, they'll slow down rather than speed up project progress for the average student on moderately complex projects. On a fixed deadline, they'll result in worse projects, or necessitate less ambitious project scoping to ensure adequate completion, and I expect this remains broadly true through 4-6 years of study in most programs (don't take this as an endorsement of AI "assistants" for masters students; we've ignored a lot of other problems along the way).
There's a related problem: solving open-ended project assignments well ultimately depends on deeply understanding the problem, and AI "assistants" allow students to put a lot of code in their file without spending much time thinking about the problem or building an understanding of it. This is awful for learning outcomes, but also bad for project success. Getting students to see the value of thinking deeply about a problem is a thorny pedagogical puzzle at the best of times, and allowing the use of AI "assistants" makes the problem much much worse. This is another area I hope to see (or even drive) pedagogical improvement in, for what it's worth.
1/2

@arXiv_csCL_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-16 10:31:11

Addressing Data Imbalance in Transformer-Based Multi-Label Emotion Detection with Weighted Loss
Xia Cui
arxiv.org/abs/2507.11384

@arXiv_mathOC_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-16 11:59:27

Using Integer Programming to Solve Games, Puzzles, and Ciphers
Elizabeth Bouzarth, John Harris, Kevin Hutson, Christian Millichap
arxiv.org/abs/2509.12174

@arXiv_mathDS_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-14 08:11:22

The $\alpha$-Cap Process: A Continuous Model for Random Geometric Networks of Binary Neurons
Mirabel Reid, Daniel J. Zhang
arxiv.org/abs/2508.09396

@arXiv_statAP_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-18 08:07:12

Short-term CO2 emissions forecasting: insight from the Italian electricity market
Pierdomenico Duttilo, Francesco Lisi
arxiv.org/abs/2507.12992

@arXiv_hepph_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-11 08:51:43

Testing Viability of Benchmark Dark Matter Models for the Galactic Center Excess
Yongao Hu, Cari Cesarotti, Tracy R. Slatyer
arxiv.org/abs/2509.08043

@arXiv_csLG_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-08 10:04:30

Should We Always Train Models on Fine-Grained Classes?
Davide Pirovano, Federico Milanesio, Michele Caselle, Piero Fariselli, Matteo Osella
arxiv.org/abs/2509.05130

@arXiv_csMM_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-12 09:44:13

VGGSounder: Audio-Visual Evaluations for Foundation Models
Daniil Zverev, Thadd\"aus Wiedemer, Ameya Prabhu, Matthias Bethge, Wieland Brendel, A. Sophia Koepke
arxiv.org/abs/2508.08237

@arXiv_csSC_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-17 07:58:20

FactorHD: A Hyperdimensional Computing Model for Multi-Object Multi-Class Representation and Factorization
Yifei Zhou, Xuchu Huang, Chenyu Ni, Min Zhou, Zheyu Yan, Xunzhao Yin, Cheng Zhuo
arxiv.org/abs/2507.12366

@arXiv_grqc_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-12 09:03:39

Cosmology in warped massive gravity
Sebastian Garcia-Saenz, Yuxiang Wei, Xue Zhou
arxiv.org/abs/2509.09270 arxiv.org/pdf/2509.09270

@tiotasram@kolektiva.social
2025-06-21 02:34:13

Why AI can't possibly make you more productive; long
#AI and "productivity", some thoughts:
Edit: fixed some typos.
Productivity is a concept that isn't entirely meaningless outside the context of capitalism, but it's a concept that is heavily inflected in a capitalist context. In many uses today it effectively means "how much you can satisfy and/or exceed your boss' expectations." This is not really what it should mean: even in an anarchist utopia, people would care about things like how many shirts they can produce in a week, although in an "I'd like to voluntarily help more people" way rather than an "I need to meet this quota to earn my survival" way. But let's roll with this definition for a second, because it's almost certainly what your boss means when they say "productivity", and understanding that word in a different (even if truer) sense is therefore inherently dangerous.
Accepting "productivity" to mean "satisfying your boss' expectations," I will now claim: the use of generative AI cannot increase your productivity.
Before I dive in, it's imperative to note that the big generative models which most people think of as constituting "AI" today are evil. They are 1: pouring fuel on our burning planet, 2: psychologically strip-mining a class of data laborers who are exploited for their precarity, 3: enclosing, exploiting, and polluting the digital commons, and 4: stealing labor from broad classes of people many of whom are otherwise glad to give that labor away for free provided they get a simple acknowledgement in return. Any of these four "ethical issues" should be enough *alone* to cause everyone to simply not use the technology. These ethical issues are the reason that I do not use generative AI right now, except for in extremely extenuating circumstances. These issues are also convincing for a wide range of people I talk to, from experts to those with no computer science background. So before I launch into a critique of the effectiveness of generative AI, I want to emphasize that such a critique should be entirely unnecessary.
But back to my thesis: generative AI cannot increase your productivity, where "productivity" has been defined as "how much you can satisfy and/or exceed your boss' expectations."
Why? In fact, what the fuck? Every AI booster I've met has claimed the opposite. They've given me personal examples of time saved by using generative AI. Some of them even truly believe this. Sometimes I even believe they saved time without horribly compromising on quality (and often, your boss doesn't care about quality anyways if the lack of quality is hard to measure of doesn't seem likely to impact short-term sales/feedback/revenue). So if generative AI genuinely lets you write more emails in a shorter period of time, or close more tickets, or something else along these lines, how can I say it isn't increasing your ability to meet your boss' expectations?
The problem is simple: your boss' expectations are not a fixed target. Never have been. In virtue of being someone who oversees and pays wages to others under capitalism, your boss' game has always been: pay you less than the worth of your labor, so that they can accumulate profit and thus more capital to remain in charge instead of being forced into working for a wage themselves. Sure, there are layers of management caught in between who aren't fully in this mode, but they are irrelevant to this analysis. It matters not how much you please your manager if your CEO thinks your work is not worth the wages you are being paid. And using AI actively lowers the value of your work relative to your wages.
Why do I say that? It's actually true in several ways. The most obvious: using generative AI lowers the quality of your work, because the work it produces is shot through with errors, and when your job is reduced to proofreading slop, you are bound to tire a bit, relax your diligence, and let some mistakes through. More than you would have if you are actually doing and taking pride in the work. Examples are innumerable and frequent, from journalists to lawyers to programmers, and we laugh at them "haha how stupid to not check whether the books the AI reviewed for you actually existed!" but on a deeper level if we're honest we know we'd eventually make the same mistake ourselves (bonus game: spot the swipe-typing typos I missed in this post; I'm sure there will be some).
But using generative AI also lowers the value of your work in another much more frightening way: in this era of hype, it demonstrates to your boss that you could be replaced by AI. The more you use it, and no matter how much you can see that your human skills are really necessary to correct its mistakes, the more it appears to your boss that they should hire the AI instead of you. Or perhaps retain 10% of the people in roles like yours to manage the AI doing the other 90% of the work. Paradoxically, the *more* you get done in terms of raw output using generative AI, the more it looks to your boss as if there's an opportunity to get enough work done with even fewer expensive humans. Of course, the decision to fire you and lean more heavily into AI isn't really a good one for long-term profits and success, but the modern boss did not get where they are by considering long-term profits. By using AI, you are merely demonstrating your redundancy, and the more you get done with it, the more redundant you seem.
In fact, there's even a third dimension to this: by using generative AI, you're also providing its purveyors with invaluable training data that allows them to make it better at replacing you. It's generally quite shitty right now, but the more use it gets by competent & clever people, the better it can become at the tasks those specific people use it for. Using the currently-popular algorithm family, there are limits to this; I'm not saying it will eventually transcend the mediocrity it's entwined with. But it can absolutely go from underwhelmingly mediocre to almost-reasonably mediocre with the right training data, and data from prompting sessions is both rarer and more useful than the base datasets it's built on.
For all of these reasons, using generative AI in your job is a mistake that will likely lead to your future unemployment. To reiterate, you should already not be using it because it is evil and causes specific and inexcusable harms, but in case like so many you just don't care about those harms, I've just explained to you why for entirely selfish reasons you should not use it.
If you're in a position where your boss is forcing you to use it, my condolences. I suggest leaning into its failures instead of trying to get the most out of it, and as much as possible, showing your boss very clearly how it wastes your time and makes things slower. Also, point out the dangers of legal liability for its mistakes, and make sure your boss is aware of the degree to which any of your AI-eager coworkers are producing low-quality work that harms organizational goals.
Also, if you've read this far and aren't yet of an anarchist mindset, I encourage you to think about the implications of firing 75% of (at least the white-collar) workforce in order to make more profit while fueling the climate crisis and in most cases also propping up dictatorial figureheads in government. When *either* the AI bubble bursts *or* if the techbros get to live out the beginnings of their worker-replacement fantasies, there are going to be an unimaginable number of economically desperate people living in increasingly expensive times. I'm the kind of optimist who thinks that the resulting social crucible, though perhaps through terrible violence, will lead to deep social changes that effectively unseat from power the ultra-rich that continue to drag us all down this destructive path, and I think its worth some thinking now about what you might want the succeeding stable social configuration to look like so you can advocate towards that during points of malleability.
As others have said more eloquently, generative AI *should* be a technology that makes human lives on average easier, and it would be were it developed & controlled by humanists. The only reason that it's not, is that it's developed and controlled by terrible greedy people who use their unfairly hoarded wealth to immiserate the rest of us in order to maintain their dominance. In the long run, for our very survival, we need to depose them, and I look forward to what the term "generative AI" will mean after that finally happens.

@arXiv_csCR_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-09 11:48:02

Dataset Ownership in the Era of Large Language Models
Kun Li, Cheng Wang, Minghui Xu, Yue Zhang, Xiuzhen Cheng
arxiv.org/abs/2509.05921 arx…

@arXiv_csCV_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-11 09:24:53

Generalized Zero-Shot Learning for Point Cloud Segmentation with Evidence-Based Dynamic Calibration
Hyeonseok Kim, Byeongkeun Kang, Yeejin Lee
arxiv.org/abs/2509.08280

@arXiv_astrophIM_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-13 08:04:22

Modeling Non-Gaussianities in Pulsar Timing Array data analysis using Gaussian Mixture Models
Mikel Falxa, Alberto Sesana
arxiv.org/abs/2508.08365

@arXiv_csCL_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-08 10:12:10

Analyzing Finnish Inflectional Classes through Discriminative Lexicon and Deep Learning Models
Alexandre Nikolaev, Yu-Ying Chuang, R. Harald Baayen
arxiv.org/abs/2509.04813

@arXiv_mathAG_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-06-26 09:05:50

Projection Cascades of models of log del Pezzo surfaces
Muhammad Imran Qureshi
arxiv.org/abs/2506.19970 arxiv.org/pdf…

@arXiv_physicsclassph_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-14 08:17:42

Mathematical modelling in Physics: deterministic processes
Sergej Pankratow
arxiv.org/abs/2507.08004 arxiv.org/pdf/25…

@arXiv_csCY_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-09 08:44:32

Governing AI R&D: A Legal Framework for Constraining Dangerous AI
Alex Mark, Aaron Scher
arxiv.org/abs/2509.05361 arxiv.org/pdf/2509.05…

@arXiv_condmatstatmech_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-09 09:56:52

New universality classes govern the critical and multicritical behavior of an active Ising model
Matthew Wong, Chiu Fan Lee
arxiv.org/abs/2507.06068

@arXiv_astrophHE_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-08 07:58:30

The Landscape of Collapsar Outflows: Structure, Signatures and Origins of Einstein Probe Relativistic Supernova Transients
Ore Gottlieb
arxiv.org/abs/2509.04551

@arXiv_condmatmeshall_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-09 10:18:42

Path integral approach to quantum thermalization
Alexander Altland, Kun Woo Kim, Tobias Micklitz
arxiv.org/abs/2509.06028 arxiv.org/pdf/250…

@arXiv_csFL_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-12 07:33:32

Hexagonal Picture Scanning Automata
Deepalakshmi D, Lisa Mathew
arxiv.org/abs/2508.07779 arxiv.org/pdf/2508.07779

@arXiv_eessSP_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-10 09:19:21

SA-OOSC: A Multimodal LLM-Distilled Semantic Communication Framework for Enhanced Coding Efficiency with Scenario Understanding
Feifan Zhang, Yuyang Du, Yifan Xiang, Xiaoyan Liu, Soung Chang Liew
arxiv.org/abs/2509.07436

@tiotasram@kolektiva.social
2025-07-30 17:56:35

Just read this post by @… on an optimistic AGI future, and while it had some interesting and worthwhile ideas, it's also in my opinion dangerously misguided, and plays into the current AGI hype in a harmful way.
social.coop/@eloquence/1149406
My criticisms include:
- Current LLM technology has many layers, but the biggest most capable models are all tied to corporate datacenters and require inordinate amounts of every and water use to run. Trying to use these tools to bring about a post-scarcity economy will burn up the planet. We urgently need more-capable but also vastly more efficient AI technologies if we want to use AI for a post-scarcity economy, and we are *not* nearly on the verge of this despite what the big companies pushing LLMs want us to think.
- I can see that permacommons.org claims a small level of expenses on AI equates to low climate impact. However, given current deep subsidies on place by the big companies to attract users, that isn't a great assumption. The fact that their FAQ dodges the question about which AI systems they use isn't a great look.
- These systems are not free in the same way that Wikipedia or open-source software is. To run your own model you need a data harvesting & cleaning operation that costs millions of dollars minimum, and then you need millions of dollars worth of storage & compute to train & host the models. Right now, big corporations are trying to compete for market share by heavily subsidizing these things, but it you go along with that, you become dependent on them, and you'll be screwed when they jack up the price to a profitable level later. I'd love to see open dataset initiatives SBD the like, and there are some of these things, but not enough yet, and many of the initiatives focus on one problem while ignoring others (fine for research but not the basis for a society yet).
- Between the environmental impacts, the horrible labor conditions and undercompensation of data workers who filter the big datasets, and the impacts of both AI scrapers and AI commons pollution, the developers of the most popular & effective LLMs have a lot of answer for. This project only really mentions environmental impacts, which makes me think that they're not serious about ethics, which in turn makes me distrustful of the whole enterprise.
- Their language also ends up encouraging AI use broadly while totally ignoring several entire classes of harm, so they're effectively contributing to AI hype, especially with such casual talk of AGI and robotics as if embodied AGI were just around the corner. To be clear about this point: we are several breakthroughs away from AGI under the most optimistic assumptions, and giving the impression that those will happen soon plays directly into the hands of the Sam Altmans of the world who are trying to make money off the impression of impending huge advances in AI capabilities. Adding to the AI hype is irresponsible.
- I've got a more philosophical criticism that I'll post about separately.
I do think that the idea of using AI & other software tools, possibly along with robotics and funded by many local cooperatives, in order to make businesses obsolete before they can do the same to all workers, is a good one. Get your local library to buy a knitting machine alongside their 3D printer.
Lately I've felt too busy criticizing AI to really sit down and think about what I do want the future to look like, even though I'm a big proponent of positive visions for the future as a force multiplier for criticism, and this article is inspiring to me in that regard, even if the specific project doesn't seem like a good one.

@arXiv_quantph_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-06-25 10:12:20

Isoprobability Models of Qubit Dynamics: Demonstration via Time-Dependent Phase Control on IBM Quantum
Ivo S. Mihov, Nikolay V. Vitanov
arxiv.org/abs/2506.19572

@arXiv_astrophCO_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-05 08:08:00

Viability of generalized $\alpha$-inflation from Planck, ACT, and DESI Data
Gabriel German, Juan Carlos Hidalgo
arxiv.org/abs/2508.01017 ar…

@arXiv_csCV_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-08 09:26:40

Toward Accessible Dermatology: Skin Lesion Classification Using Deep Learning Models on Mobile-Acquired Images
Asif Newaz, Masum Mushfiq Ishti, A Z M Ashraful Azam, Asif Ur Rahman Adib
arxiv.org/abs/2509.04800

@arXiv_physicssocph_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-05 08:37:20

Collective contributions to polarization in political voting
Gavin Rees, Edward D. Lee
arxiv.org/abs/2508.02496 arxiv.org/pdf/2508.02496

@arXiv_csSE_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-28 09:19:11

Leveraging LLMs for Automated Translation of Legacy Code: A Case Study on PL/SQL to Java Transformation
Lola Solovyeva, Eduardo Carneiro Oliveira, Shiyu Fan, Alper Tuncay, Shamil Gareev, Andrea Capiluppi
arxiv.org/abs/2508.19663

@arXiv_condmatdisnn_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-03 08:17:40

Wilson Line and Disorder Invariants of Topological One-Dimensional Multiband Models
R. Moola, A. Mckenna, M. Hilke
arxiv.org/abs/2507.01846

@arXiv_statME_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-20 08:35:00

Statistical Inference for Subgraph Frequencies of Exchangeable Hyperedge Models
Ayoushman Bhattacharya, Nilanjan Chakraborty, Robert Lunde
arxiv.org/abs/2508.13258

@arXiv_mathRT_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-31 08:44:31

Geometric models of simple Lie algebras via singularity theory
Cheol-Hyun Cho, Wonbo Jeong, Beom-Seok Kim
arxiv.org/abs/2507.22836 arxiv.or…

@arXiv_quantph_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-07 09:53:04

Generalized Quantum Hadamard Test for Machine Learning
Vivek Mehta, Arghya Choudhury, Utpal Roy
arxiv.org/abs/2508.04065 arxiv.org/pdf/2508…

@arXiv_csCV_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-28 10:14:31

CXR-CML: Improved zero-shot classification of long-tailed multi-label diseases in Chest X-Rays
Rajesh Madhipati, Sheethal Bhat, Lukas Buess, Andreas Maier
arxiv.org/abs/2507.19398

@arXiv_csDC_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-06-24 09:13:39

Research on Model Parallelism and Data Parallelism Optimization Methods in Large Language Model-Based Recommendation Systems
Haowei Yang, Yu Tian, Zhongheng Yang, Zhao Wang, Chengrui Zhou, Dannier Li
arxiv.org/abs/2506.17551

@arXiv_csAI_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-26 10:10:27

Modular Embedding Recomposition for Incremental Learning
Aniello Panariello, Emanuele Frascaroli, Pietro Buzzega, Lorenzo Bonicelli, Angelo Porrello, Simone Calderara
arxiv.org/abs/2508.16463

@arXiv_physicscompph_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-01 10:15:43

Modified non-local damage model: resolving spurious damage evolution
Roshan Philip Saji, Panos Pantidis, Mostafa E. Mobasher
arxiv.org/abs/2506.24099

@arXiv_astrophCO_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-27 09:02:12

Quintessential dark energy crossing the phantom divide
Ruiqi Chen, James M. Cline, Varun Muralidharan, Benjamin Salewicz
arxiv.org/abs/2508.19101

@arXiv_qfinMF_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-21 08:31:20

Pricing Options on Forwards in Function-Valued Affine Stochastic Volatility Models
Jian He, Sven Karbach, Asma Khedher
arxiv.org/abs/2508.14813

@arXiv_csHC_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-01 09:45:11

Automated Feedback on Student-Generated UML and ER Diagrams Using Large Language Models
Sebastian G\"urtl, Gloria Schimetta, David Kerschbaumer, Michael Liut, Alexander Steinmaurer
arxiv.org/abs/2507.23470

@arXiv_grqc_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-26 07:47:56

Stable models in lower dimensions within the quadratic form of the non-metricity theory
G. G. L. Nashed, Salvatore Capozziello
arxiv.org/abs/2508.16679

@arXiv_csCV_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-09-01 09:40:32

Unsupervised Incremental Learning Using Confidence-Based Pseudo-Labels
Lucas Rakotoarivony
arxiv.org/abs/2508.21424 arxiv.org/pdf/2508.2142…

@arXiv_csLG_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-27 10:35:53

Saddle Hierarchy in Dense Associative Memory
Robin Th\'eriault, Daniele Tantari
arxiv.org/abs/2508.19151 arxiv.org/pdf/2508.19151

@arXiv_csSD_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-23 09:19:52

Detect Any Sound: Open-Vocabulary Sound Event Detection with Multi-Modal Queries
Pengfei Cai, Yan Song, Qing Gu, Nan Jiang, Haoyu Song, Ian McLoughlin
arxiv.org/abs/2507.16343

@arXiv_csAI_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-25 09:21:30

Modular Embedding Recomposition for Incremental Learning
Aniello Panariello, Emanuele Frascaroli, Pietro Buzzega, Lorenzo Bonicelli, Angelo Porrello, Simone Calderara
arxiv.org/abs/2508.16463

@arXiv_condmatdisnn_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-22 08:12:51

Multifractality in high-dimensional graphs induced by correlated radial disorder
David E. Logan, Sthitadhi Roy
arxiv.org/abs/2508.15551 arx…

@arXiv_csLG_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-24 10:18:09

ViRN: Variational Inference and Distribution Trilateration for Long-Tailed Continual Representation Learning
Hao Dai, Chong Tang, Jagmohan Chauhan
arxiv.org/abs/2507.17368

@arXiv_csCV_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-21 10:04:30

Foundation Models as Class-Incremental Learners for Dermatological Image Classification
Mohamed Elkhayat, Mohamed Mahmoud, Jamil Fayyad, Nourhan Bayasi
arxiv.org/abs/2507.14050

@arXiv_nuclth_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-23 08:53:52

Anisotropic flow predictions for identified and strange hadrons in $O O$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 7 TeV using model approaches
Jagbir Singh, M. U. Ashraf, A. M. Khan, S. Kabana
arxiv.org/abs/2507.16273

@arXiv_astrophCO_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-07-22 08:27:20

ACT Implications for Hilltop Inflation
Monika Lynker, Rolf Schimmrigk
arxiv.org/abs/2507.15076 arxiv.org/pdf/2507.150…

@arXiv_csCV_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-19 12:06:10

Empirical Evidences for the Effects of Feature Diversity in Open Set Recognition and Continual Learning
Jiawen Xu, Odej Kao
arxiv.org/abs/2508.13005

@arXiv_grqc_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-25 08:50:20

Interacting Scalar Field Cosmology from Full Quantum Gravity
Tom R. Ladst\"atter, Luca Marchetti
arxiv.org/abs/2508.16194 arxiv.org/pd…

@arXiv_csCV_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-21 10:10:40

Multiscale Video Transformers for Class Agnostic Segmentation in Autonomous Driving
Leila Cheshmi, Mennatullah Siam
arxiv.org/abs/2508.14729

@arXiv_csCV_bot@mastoxiv.page
2025-08-20 10:18:40

RICO: Two Realistic Benchmarks and an In-Depth Analysis for Incremental Learning in Object Detection
Matthias Neuwirth-Trapp, Maarten Bieshaar, Danda Pani Paudel, Luc Van Gool
arxiv.org/abs/2508.13878