Daily Papers

Learning rate schedules are typically fixed before training begins, yet when fine-tuning large language models with low-rank adapters (LoRA), the appropriate scale varies substantially with the model, task, and adapter configuration. Practitioners re-tune a schedule for every new problem, yet a tuned schedule still cannot react to the training dynamics it encounters. We instead amortize learning rate selection across LoRA fine-tuning problems. We leave the base optimizer, Muon, untouched, so that its normalized update fixes the direction, and meta-learn only the global step size. Our method MuPACE is a small recurrent policy, meta-trained across a distribution of fine-tuning runs, that conditions on the observed trajectory and emits bounded adjustments to an interpretable analytic schedule. On 64 fine-tuning problems, MuPACE outperforms standard fixed schedules at a strong shared default on 64-78% of problems and is on par with the same schedules with per-task tuned peaks. Meta-trained only on models with up to 16 layers, MuPACE transfers one-shot to unseen tasks on models as deep as 64 layers, such as Qwen3-32B and Qwen3.8-27B, where a single run remains competitive with swept schedules.

Diffusion and flow-matching schedules control the signal and noise coefficients that mix data and noise along affine probability paths. Minimizing a kinetic action defined on coefficient paths, motivated by optimal transport, helps explain strong baselines but remains model-agnostic and ignores prediction error. Here we introduce a model-aware schedule construction based on fiberwise optimal transport. At a fixed time and state on the probability path, compatible signal/noise decompositions form an affine fiber. We define a fiberwise prediction risk by averaging optimal-transport costs between the true and predictor-induced decompositions within these fibers. On a fixed coefficient curve, combining this risk with coefficient-path kinetic action yields a closed-form optimal time allocation. This construction extends to general linear prediction targets, and the risk profile can be estimated from an early baseline checkpoint. We evaluate DDPMs and flow matching across prediction targets, training configurations, risk-estimation checkpoints, datasets, and architectures. Our model-aware schedules consistently outperform strong baselines, including a 38.6% relative FID reduction for flow matching on CIFAR-10 at 16 function evaluations. Each model-agnostic kinetic baseline determines its own kinetic reference coordinate. In these coordinates, fiberwise-risk profiles from independently trained models in different settings align closely after normalization to unit area. The resulting schedule deformations used in training also align, suggesting empirical universality across the evaluated models and settings. Pretrained-checkpoint diagnostics extend this normalized-risk agreement to larger conditional latent diffusion and 2-RF models. A frozen analytic allocation template retains most of the model-aware improvement without further risk estimation or model-specific fitting.

A basic unanswered question in neural network training is: what is the best learning rate schedule shape for a given workload? The choice of learning rate schedule is a key factor in the success or failure of the training process, but beyond having some kind of warmup and decay, there is no consensus on what makes a good schedule shape. To answer this question, we designed a search procedure to find the best shapes within a parameterized schedule family. Our approach factors out the schedule shape from the base learning rate, which otherwise would dominate cross-schedule comparisons. We applied our search procedure to a variety of schedule families on three workloads: linear regression, image classification on CIFAR-10, and small-scale language modeling on Wikitext103. We showed that our search procedure indeed generally found near-optimal schedules. We found that warmup and decay are robust features of good schedules, and that commonly used schedule families are not optimal on these workloads. Finally, we explored how the outputs of our shape search depend on other optimization hyperparameters, and found that weight decay can have a strong effect on the optimal schedule shape. To the best of our knowledge, our results represent the most comprehensive results on near-optimal schedule shapes for deep neural network training, to date.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly tasked with complex real-world analysis (e.g., in financial forecasting, scientific discovery), yet their reasoning suffers from stochastic instability and lacks a verifiable, compositional structure. To address this, we introduce Analytica, a novel agent architecture built on the principle of Soft Propositional Reasoning (SPR). SPR reframes complex analysis as a structured process of estimating the soft truth values of different outcome propositions, allowing us to formally model and minimize the estimation error in terms of its bias and variance. Analytica operationalizes this through a parallel, divide-and-conquer framework that systematically reduces both sources of error. To reduce bias, problems are first decomposed into a tree of subpropositions, and tool-equipped LLM grounder agents are employed, including a novel Jupyter Notebook agent for data-driven analysis, that help to validate and score facts. To reduce variance, Analytica recursively synthesizes these grounded leaves using robust linear models that average out stochastic noise with superior efficiency, scalability, and enable interactive "what-if" scenario analysis. Our theoretical and empirical results on economic, financial, and political forecasting tasks show that Analytica improves 15.84% accuracy on average over diverse base models, achieving 71.06% accuracy with the lowest variance of 6.02% when working with a Deep Research grounder. Our Jupyter Notebook grounder shows strong cost-effectiveness that achieves a close 70.11% accuracy with 90.35% less cost and 52.85% less time. Analytica also exhibits highly noise-resilient and stable performance growth as the analysis depth increases, with a near-linear time complexity, as well as good adaptivity to open-weight LLMs and scientific domains.

Overlapping calendar invitations force busy professionals to repeatedly decide which meetings to attend, reschedule, or decline. We refer to this preference-driven decision process as calendar conflict resolution. Automating this decision process is crucial yet challenging. Scheduling logistics can drain hours, and human delegation often fails at scale, which motivates us to ask: Can we trust large language models (LLMs) or language agents to manage time? To enable a systematic study of this question, we introduce CalConflictBench, a benchmark for long-horizon calendar conflict resolution. In CalConflictBench, conflicts are presented to agents round-by-round over a calendar year, requiring them to infer and adapt to user preferences progressively. Our experiments show that current LLM agents perform poorly with high error rates, e.g., Qwen-3-30B-Think has an average error rate of 35%. To address this gap, we propose PEARL, a reinforcement-learning framework that (i) augments the language agent with an external preference memory that stores and updates inferred strategies (e.g., attendee priorities, topic importance, time/location preferences), and (ii) optimizes the agent with round-wise rewards that directly supervise decision correctness, ranking quality, and memory usage across rounds. Experiments on CalConflictBench show that PEARL achieves an error reduction rate of 0.76 and a 55% improvement in average error rate compared to the strongest baseline.

In Large Language Model (LLM) inference, the output length of an LLM request is typically regarded as not known a priori. Consequently, most LLM serving systems employ a simple First-come-first-serve (FCFS) scheduling strategy, leading to Head-Of-Line (HOL) blocking and reduced throughput and service quality. In this paper, we reexamine this assumption -- we show that, although predicting the exact generation length of each request is infeasible, it is possible to predict the relative ranks of output lengths in a batch of requests, using learning to rank. The ranking information offers valuable guidance for scheduling requests. Building on this insight, we develop a novel scheduler for LLM inference and serving that can approximate the shortest-job-first (SJF) schedule better than existing approaches. We integrate this scheduler with the state-of-the-art LLM serving system and show significant performance improvement in several important applications: 2.8x lower latency in chatbot serving and 6.5x higher throughput in synthetic data generation. Our code is available at https://github.com/hao-ai-lab/vllm-ltr.git