Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Abraham Yeung

Publications and source records attributed to Abraham Yeung.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

How Small Can We Go? Calibrating Activation-Cache Compression for SAE Training

To train a sparse autoencoder (SAE), you need a massive cache of model activations. We look into the effects that compression has on an SAE in two ways: we keep the original fp32-trained SAE and pass the compressed cache into the same SAE to see how many feature activations stay the same (the frozen-SAE test), and we retrain an SAE on the compressed cache and see how many of the original features still exist (the retraining test). We found that in the retraining test, there is no clear scale for retained features. On a GPT-2 cache, rounding everything to fp16 keeps 60.6% of features, but changing one value in a million by the smallest step fp32 allows (a change eight orders of magnitude smaller) keeps only 70.5%. Meanwhile, changing the random seed keeps 23.0%. For the frozen-SAE test, the frozen SAE's correlation with the original increases in order of how precise the codecs are, but plain $L_2$ distance gives nearly the same ordering. We also see the same frozen reading correspond to different percentages retained at different sites. This leaves the question of the right measurement. We build one by calibrating: retraining on identical bytes sets the ceiling, and a reseed sets the floor. We then measure the effect of each compressed codec against its own site's floor. With TopK SAEs on GPT-2 small and Pythia-1.4B at research-scale budgets, naïve per-token int4 loses more features than a reseed everywhere we tested, as do PCA and random projection on GPT-2. Standardizing each channel before quantizing brings int4 back above the floor in terms of retained features, at the same raw file size. At our smallest budget, a bf16 forward pass, which some pipelines use to save memory, loses slightly more features than rotated 8-bit storage. Calibrating a site costs four training runs and two evaluation passes.

cs.LG↗

Coding Agents for Coding Theory

We spent five weeks using an LLM coding agent on open problems in coding theory: finding large sets of four-letter words, such as DNA barcodes, that stay far apart in edit distance. The agent wrote the verifiers and search code; a human chose the problem and set the verification protocol. Restricting the search to codes with a prescribed symmetry, a classical technique, shrank the problem about fourfold and raised the best known code of length 6 and minimum edit distance 3 from 114 to 120 words ($E_4(6,3) \geq 120$). The same pipeline improved twelve further lower bounds at lengths 6 to 9 and distances 3 to 6. We give the failures equal space. Our own search stopped at 116 and recorded the last symmetry class as topping out at 112; a second agent session, running the same search with a better operator, found the 120. A later verdict that the method did not carry over to length 7 was wrong for the same reason, and an earlier instance cost three weeks. Each time, an intermediate result was written down, never rechecked, and treated as a fact that ruled out further search. Checking final outputs, as our protocol required, does not catch such errors.

cs.IT↗