A conventional all-attention model of the same size on the same data and a conventional all-attention hybrid that beats GPT-2 124M, Pythia-160M, OPT-125M and GPT-neo-125M, and exceeds MobileLLM-125M's published score despite that model seeing a trillion tokens.
Abstract
Small language models are usually built like large ones and then squeezed onto a CPU afterwards. We did the opposite: we fixed the target first, one user, one token at a time, 4-bit weights, ordinary CPU, and chose the architecture to suit it. The result keeps full attention in only 6 of its 18 blocks. The other 12 use short convolutions whose memory is two timesteps wide no matter how long the conversation gets, so two thirds of the network never re-reads a growing cache. Trained from scratch on 59.9B tokens, the model scores 47.31 on a five-task benchmark against a bar of 42.20 that was fixed before training began. It beats GPT-2 124M, Pythia-160M, OPT-125M and GPT-neo-125M, all trained on three to six times more data, and exceeds MobileLLM-125M's published score despite that model seeing a trillion tokens. Validation bits-per-byte is 0.8685. To check the architecture rather than the training recipe, we trained a conventional all-attention model of the same size on the same data, and wrote down the winning condition before scoring either. The hybrid won the chosen quality metric by 0.81%, matched it on downstream tasks, produced a 6.3% smaller 4-bit file, and decoded 1.76x faster at 2048 tokens of context, 2.08x against an external model of similar size. In every measurement the speed advantage is near zero at an empty context and grows with length, which is what the mechanism predicts and what a merely leaner model would not show. A simple bandwidth calculation predicts only 1.17x, so memory volume alone does not explain the gap. We also report what did not work: an unmitigated 4-bit quality cost, roughly half the convolution channels ending up inert and impossible to remove, and a vocabulary larger than this model size warrants.
LifeSciBench is introduced, a benchmark of 750 expert-authored tasks designed to evaluate whether language models can handle realistic life science research work, with each constituent task paired with a human expert-written rubric.
Amelia Liu, Andrew Ho, Anne Marie Droste et al.· bioRxiv· 2 citations
TestifAI, a deep learning testing framework for efficient and accurate estimation of robustness against combinations of perturbations, is proposed and partial model tomography is introduced, a novel approach to reconstructing model behaviour in a multi-perturbation space from tests that apply only a small number of perturbations.
Arooj Arif, T. Hartung, E. Botoeva et al.· 1 citation
A rapidly advancing precision-therapy pipeline-including antisense oligonucleotides to upregulate the intact allele, AAV-based gene replacement, CRISPR-mediated transcriptional activation, epigenetic modulators, and rational pathway-targeted small molecules-offers realistic prospects for disease modification.
Two language-model-based strategies are proposed for semantic code document segmentation, including a line-by-line approach that classifies each line of code separately before grouping the results into functional units, and a range-based approach that aims to directly determine groups of code lines from the input.
Abdelhalim Hafedh Dahou, A. Scherp, Sebastian Kurten et al.· Proceedings of the 2026 ACM...· 0 citations
The results suggest that bitsandbytes 4-bit quantization can impose an additional cost on applications relying on long, updatable, semantically dense contexts, even when aggregate benchmark accuracy appears largely unaffected.
Background Ambient AI documentation tools, known as scribes, are entering routine clinical practice at scale, but the evidence comparing the notes they produce against clinician-written notes is dominated by single-site, single-language studies that rely on human review to find errors, a method known to miss most documentation errors. Methods We conducted a paired simulation across five countries and languages (Cambridge/English, Barcelona/Spanish, Milan/Italian, Paris/French, Cologne/German; 385 paired consultations, 770 notes). From each actor-performed consultation, an AI scribe (Heidi) and a junior-to-middle-grade clinician independently produced a note. Notes were scored on the PDQI-9 by evaluators blinded to authorship. Documentation errors were identified by two methods of deliberately different sensitivity - clinician adjudication, and a calibrated automated reviewer externally validated against a blinded ten-clinician panel - then graded for clinical risk by a three-model panel. The co-primary outcomes were PDQI-9 total and Critical+High error burden, the latter reported under both detection arms. The analysis plan was registered before any pooling across sites. Results AI notes scored higher than clinician notes on the PDQI-9 (40.6 vs 35.6; difference +5.08, 95% CI 4.6-5.6; Cohen dz=0.55), consistently across all five sites (dz 0.41-0.75), and were less dispersed (5.7% of AI vs 27.8% of clinician notes fell below the study pre-specified low-score threshold (<32)). On the principal safety outcome - the paired probability that a note carried [≥]Critical+High error - clinician notes were affected more often under both detection arms: 61.0% versus 24.4% by the calibrated reviewer (relative risk 2.50, 95% CI 2.09-3.00) and 21.8% versus 6.2% by clinician adjudication (relative risk 3.50, 95% CI 2.32-5.27). The difference was largest for omissions. Unaided clinician review identified roughly 12% of the errors the calibrated reviewer retained, and a smaller fraction in AI notes than in clinician notes. Conclusions In this simulation, AI-generated notes scored higher on documentation quality, varied less, and carried fewer clinically significant errors than notes written on the same consultations by junior-to-middle-grade clinicians. The magnitude of the safety difference depends on the sensitivity of error detection, so we report both detection regimes and bound rather than point-estimate the absolute error rate. Extension to live practice, consultant-authored documentation, and notes as filed after clinician editing remains to be established.
H. Bergman, V. Liu, B. Austin et al.· medRxiv· 0 citations
A new method for surgically removing training examples from a model reveals that as datasets grow, the link between what a model learns and what it produces dissolves.
