Equivalence

KV caching is a ubiquitous optimization in autoregressive transformer inference, long presumed to be numerically equivalent to cache-free computation. This assumption fails under standard FP16 precision: cache-ON and cache-OFF execution paths employ different floating-point accumulation orderings which, due to FP16 non-associativity, produce a deterministic divergence in decoded token sequences. Across three open-weight models (LLaMA-2-7B, Mistral-7B-v0.3, Gemma-2-2B) evaluated on GSM8K, we observe a 100% token divergence rate across all sampling strategies, including greedy decoding, which rules out sampling randomness as a cause, and also with cache-ON yielding higher accuracy in 8 of 9 conditions, where the accuracy difference serves as an indicator that the divergence direction is systematic rather than random. Controlled FP32 falsification reduces divergence by eight orders of magnitude, eliminates token flips, and drops the flip rate to exactly 0.0%, confirming FP16 non-associativity as the sole causal driver. Layer-wise drift profiling reveals architecturally predictable propagation patterns: models using Grouped-Query Attention exhibit sharp divergence at the first layer, while Gemma's larger head dimension and sliding window attention produce uniform accumulation across all layers. Finally, activation patching of the entire residual stream fails to recover the cache-free trajectory, localizing the causal variable to the stateful KV cache. These findings establish that FP16 KV cache inference is fundamentally non-equivalent to recomputation and provide a mechanistic framework for understanding numerical instability in modern LLM inference systems.

Modern machine learning systems, such as generative models and recommendation systems, often evolve through a cycle of deployment, user interaction, and periodic model updates. This differs from standard supervised learning frameworks, which focus on loss or regret minimization over a fixed sequence of prediction tasks. Motivated by this setting, we revisit the classical model of learning from equivalence queries, introduced by Angluin (1988). In this model, a learner repeatedly proposes hypotheses and, when a deployed hypothesis is inadequate, receives a counterexample. Under fully adversarial counterexample generation, however, the model can be overly pessimistic. In addition, most prior work assumes a \emph{full-information} setting, where the learner also observes the correct label of the counterexample, an assumption that is not always natural. We address these issues by restricting the environment to a broad class of less adversarial counterexample generators, which we call \emph{symmetric}. Informally, such generators choose counterexamples based only on the symmetric difference between the hypothesis and the target. This class captures natural mechanisms such as random counterexamples (Angluin and Dohrn, 2017; Bhatia, 2021; Chase, Freitag, and Reyzin, 2024), as well as generators that return the simplest counterexample according to a prescribed complexity measure. Within this framework, we study learning from equivalence queries under both full-information and bandit feedback. We obtain tight bounds on the number of learning rounds in both settings and highlight directions for future work. Our analysis combines a game-theoretic view of symmetric adversaries with adaptive weighting methods and minimax arguments.

The emergence of large language model agents capable of invoking external tools has created urgent need for formal verification of agent protocols. Two paradigms dominate this space: Schema-Guided Dialogue (SGD), a research framework for zero-shot API generalization, and the Model Context Protocol (MCP), an industry standard for agent-tool integration. While both enable dynamic service discovery through schema descriptions, their formal relationship remains unexplored. We present the first process calculus formalization of SGD and MCP, proving they are structurally bisimilar under a well-defined mapping Phi. We demonstrate that the reverse mapping Phi-1 is partial and lossy, revealing critical gaps in MCP's expressivity. Through bidirectional analysis, we identify four principles - semantic completeness, explicit action boundaries, failure mode documentation, and inter-tool relationship declaration -- as necessary and sufficient conditions for full behavioral equivalence. We formalize these principles as type-system extensions MCP+, proving MCP+ is fully equivalent to SGD. Our work provides the first formal foundation for verified agent systems and establishes schema quality as a provable safety property. Practically, this means that the current MCP specification has expressiveness gaps compared to SGD and would benefit from the proposed extensions.

In a spiking neural network, is it enough for each neuron to spike at most once? In recent work, approximation bounds for spiking neural networks have been derived, quantifying how well they can fit target functions. However, these results are only valid for neurons that spike at most once, which is commonly thought to be a strong limitation. Here, we show that the opposite is true for a large class of spiking neuron models, including the commonly used leaky integrate-and-fire model with subtractive reset: for every approximation bound that is valid for a set of multi-spike neural networks, there is an equivalent set of single-spike neural networks with only linearly more (or less) neurons, in the maximum number of spikes, for which the bound holds. The same is true for the reverse direction too, showing that regarding their approximation capabilities in general machine learning tasks, single-spike and multi-spike neural networks are equivalent. Consequently, many approximation results in the literature for single-spike neural networks also hold for the multi-spike case.

Recent research has established that the impact of context in a vanilla transformer can be represented implicitly by forming a token-dependent, rank-1 patch to its MLP weights. This work extends that foundational theory to the diverse architectures of modern Large Language Models. We first demonstrate a precise, analytical solution for a Gemma-style transformer block, proving that the entire effect of a context can be perfectly mapped to rank-1 patches on its MLP weight matrices and a patch to the RMSNorm scale. We then generalize this result, providing a constructive proof and algorithm for multi-layer models. To unify these findings, we introduce a general framework centered on two core properties: input controllability and output controllability. We prove that a perfect implicit weight patch is possible for any MLP block where the inner function is input-controllable and the outer function is output-controllable. This provides a simpler and more powerful lens for understanding how transformer models transmute prompts into effective weights. This setup generalizes to a wide range of modern LLM architectures including gating, pre-/post-norm, mixture of experts and sequential/parallel transformer blocks.

Distilling reasoning traces from strong teacher models has become the standard recipe for building capable small language models. Yet reasoning traces are 5-20$\times$ longer than standard instruction fine-tuning (IFT) outputs, meaning every practitioner who chooses reasoning distillation implicitly forgoes training a larger IFT model on the same compute budget. Whether this trade-off is worthwhile remains unaddressed. We study it with a controlled experiment: a single teacher generates paired IFT and reasoning outputs for identical prompts by toggling only its reasoning mode, isolating supervision format as the sole variable. Training students at five scales (0.5B to 14B) and evaluating on 18 benchmarks, we find that at matched FLOPs, IFT lies on or near the Pareto frontier across the majority of configurations. Reasoning reaches the Pareto frontier only on open-ended tasks at 7B and above. Even there, a sequential curriculum mixing just 25-50% reasoning data with IFT captures most of the accuracy benefit at far lower compute cost.

This monograph studies the relations between two approaches using positive definite kernels: probabilistic methods using Gaussian processes, and non-probabilistic methods using reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHS). They are widely studied and used in machine learning, statistics, and numerical analysis. We study connections and equivalences for fundamental topics such as regression, interpolation, numerical integration, distributional discrepancies, and statistical dependence, as well as sample path properties of Gaussian processes. A unifying perspective for these equivalences is established, based on the equivalence between the Gaussian Hilbert space and the RKHS. The monograph serves as a basis to bridge many other methods based on Gaussian processes and reproducing kernels, which are developed in parallel by the two research communities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at complex reasoning through search algorithms, yet current strategies often suffer from massive token consumption due to redundant exploration of semantically equivalent steps. Existing semantic similarity methods struggle to accurately identify such equivalence in domain-specific contexts like mathematical reasoning. To address this, we propose EquivPruner, a simple yet effective approach that identifies and prunes semantically equivalent actions during LLM reasoning search. We also introduce MathEquiv, the first dataset we created for mathematical statement equivalence, which enables the training of a lightweight equivalence detector. Extensive experiments across various models and tasks demonstrate that EquivPruner significantly reduces token consumption, improving searching efficiency and often bolstering reasoning accuracy. For instance, when applied to Qwen2.5-Math-7B-Instruct on GSM8K, EquivPruner reduced token consumption by 48.1% while also improving accuracy. Our code is available at https://github.com/Lolo1222/EquivPruner.

For two causal structures with the same set of visible variables, one is said to observationally dominate the other if the set of distributions over the visible variables realizable by the first contains the set of distributions over the visible variables realizable by the second. Knowing such dominance relations is useful for adjudicating between these structures given observational data. Here, we consider the problem of determining the partial order of equivalence classes of causal structures with latent variables relative to observational dominance. We provide a complete characterization of the dominance order in the case of three visible variables, and a partial characterization in the case of four visible variables. Our techniques also help to identify which observational equivalence classes have a set of realizable distributions that is characterized by nontrivial inequality constraints, analogous to Bell inequalities and instrumental inequalities. We find evidence that as one increases the number of visible variables, the equivalence classes satisfying nontrivial inequality constraints become ubiquitous. (Because such classes are the ones for which there can be a difference in the distributions that are quantumly and classically realizable, this implies that the potential for quantum-classical gaps is also ubiquitous.) Furthermore, we find evidence that constraint-based causal discovery algorithms that rely solely on conditional independence constraints have a significantly weaker distinguishing power among observational equivalence classes than algorithms that go beyond these (i.e., algorithms that also leverage nested Markov constraints and inequality constraints).

Neurosymbolic systems rely on mathematical solvers to guarantee reasoning correctness, yet solvers are fundamentally blind to whether a formal translation maintains strict reference-equivalence to a designated formalization. We formalize this vulnerability as Verdict-Preserving-Unfaithfulness (VPU): a failure mode where an incorrect encoding executes successfully and matches the expected verdict. We theoretically prove that structural, verdict-only verification heuristics are mathematically bounded to chance-level detection on these deceptively valid traces. To resolve this, we introduce Generative Verification (GenV), which distills an offline Z3-equivalence oracle into a reference-free, continuous reference-equivalence score by repurposing the language model's native vocabulary space. Mechanistic analysis via decision-projected logit lenses and sparse autoencoders shows this generative readout natively extracts precise spatial error coordinates without explicit localization training. Empirically, our oracle-mined verifier (GenV+HN) achieves 0.961 AUROC in reference-equivalence verification, generalizes zero-shot across unseen translators and divergent formal styles, and yields an 11.3-point downstream accuracy gain in agentic test-time compute allocation.

AI systems increasingly operate between flexible input representations and formal objects used by downstream tools. A key challenge is recognizing when an unfamiliar formulation denotes a known formal object. We study this challenge through theorem recognition: given an equivalence-preserving transformation of a theorem condition, a model must recover the theorem identity associated with the standard statement. We introduce TREAT, a benchmark for evaluating whether large language models can recover known theorem identities from equivalence-preserving formula-level transformations. Rather than paraphrasing theorem text, TREAT changes the mathematical form of theorem conditions themselves, expressing known results through residual equations, witness statements, optimization identities, set relations, operator forms, and proof-intermediate characterizations. Starting from scraped theorem pages, we filter for entries with usable mathematical expression forms, extract canonical theorem conditions, and generate transformed variants with recorded assumptions and inverse mappings. The final corpus contains 737 theorem identities and 29,480 transformed rows. On a test panel, the best model retrieves the correct theorem identity in only 60.73% of cases. Other systems reveal different failure modes, including abstention, wrong detection, and malformed outputs. These suggest that theorem knowledge can be fragile under equivalent changes in representation. TREAT therefore provides a controlled testbed for evaluating representation-robust access to formal knowledge, with broader relevance to domains that require stable target objects, explicit equivalence relations, validation procedures, and auditable scoring.