Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2605.21333

SymbolicLight V1: Spike-Gated Dual-Path Language Modeling at High Encoder Spike Sparsity

Abstract

Natively trained spiking language models must preserve information across time while operating through sparse binary activations, a combination that has produced a persistent quality gap relative to dense Transformers. We present SymbolicLight V1, a spike-gated dual-path language model that couples binary Leaky Integrate-and-Fire (LIF) dynamics with a continuous residual stream. Its Dual-Path SparseTCAM mixer combines a first-order exponential-decay state with windowed local attention on the continuous residual stream, followed by a context-conditioned decoding head. We train four 194M-parameter models from scratch on a 3B-token, 10-domain Chinese-English corpus. On a fixed token-weighted evaluation set the runs reach perplexity (PPL) 8.88-8.93 (mean 8.904, sample standard deviation 0.019). Separation of this set from the training streams has not been verified. Training-time encoder probes have a mean zero-spike fraction of 89.96%; this is not a whole-model sparsity measure. Code tokens are 43.7% of that set; the unweighted mean of the ten domain PPLs is 29.38. Under the same corpus, tokenizer, token budget, and hardware, the token-weighted mean is 7.7% above GPT-2 201M (PPL 8.27). Across five zero-shot benchmarks the two 200M-scale models show no clear accuracy separation. Under sampling with temperature 0.7 and top-k 50, SymbolicLight produces lower 4-gram repetition; an entropy-modulated rule reverses that ranking. On an RTX 2080 Ti, measured generation throughput is 22.8 versus 91.5 token/s; post-generation power readings give rough energy estimates of 2,848 versus 905 mJ/token, without power integration over generation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ting Liu. 2026-09-07. SymbolicLight V1: Spike-Gated Dual-Path Language Modeling at High Encoder Spike Sparsity. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.21333

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CyrillicQA: The Influence of Phonetically Encoded Secret Language on LLM Performance

Due to the selection of their training data, large language models (LLMs) perform best on standard-language inputs from languages using the Latin alphabet with large speaker populations, while disadvantaging other language varieties. Nevertheless, they can also be a versatile tool for preserving precisely such endangered languages. But do they also possess the necessary creativity and capacity for abstraction to decode phonetically encoded language the same way humans do?

cs.CL

Good Pretraining, Bad SFT: Checkpoint Quality Across the Training Stack

Language-model checkpoints are commonly selected by pretraining loss or benchmark scores, assuming that the highest-scoring checkpoint will remain the best starting point for subsequent training. We show that this assumption can fail in a full 30B mixture-of-experts training pipeline. The checkpoints that perform better after the full downstream training stack also have higher solution density, i.e., retain downstream performance under local weight perturbations.

cs.AI

When Robots Mishear Us: Mapping the Safety Risks of Voice-Controlled Embodied AI

We investigate whether automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors in user input can lead to unsafe outputs from Embodied AI (EAI) models. We find that ASR errors can lead to harmful instructions being accepted and executed by EAI models, thereby reducing safety. We simulate ASR errors and combine them with existing safety benchmarks (SafeAgentBench and POEX) to evaluate how different errors affect embodied AI safety. We find that some of them preserve semantic structure but increase harmful ambiguity, while others weaken the model refusal behaviour and allow unsafe plans to be generated and executed. We show that in some cases automatic correction of ASR errors can reduce the risk, but this is not always effective. Overall, we show that ASR errors lead to significant safety risks for embodied AI.

cs.AI