new

Get trending papers in your email inbox!

Subscribe

Daily Papers

byAK and the research community

Oct 16

Violation and Restoration of Probability Positivity in Perturbative Quantum Field Theory: From Quantum Mechanics to Quantum Chromodynamics

In quantum mechanics the modulus square of the wave function is the probability of an event --- positivity is self-evident. Quantum field theory corresponds to quantum mechanics one-to-one: the wave function corresponds to the matrix element, so the probability of a process should be the modulus square of the matrix element, positive by construction. In the founding era of perturbative quantum field theory, however, Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga treated inclusive processes in quantum electrodynamics, where the truncation of the squared amplitude was forced by infrared cancellations and rendered harmless by the small coupling αsimeq1/137. Carried over to exclusive processes in quantum chromodynamics, where the coupling is large, this practice produced negative decay and production rates already at NLO, persisting at NNLO. We point out that for exclusive processes, whose initial and final states are colorless for QCD and electrically neutral for QED, the infrared divergences cancel amplitude by amplitude and the KLN constraint is absent, so the complete modulus square of the truncated amplitude is the proper, manifestly positive definition of the probability. We formulate amplitude-level NRQCD factorization as the systematic prescription that restores positivity, show that every amplitude-level truncated observable admits the effective representation Γ^{amp}=Γ_{LO}bigl|1+α_sπ(c_1+ic_2)+α_s^2{π^2}(c_3+ic_4)bigr|^2, and demonstrate, with the complete NNLO QCD corrections to J/ψto3γ, Υto3γ, e^+e^-to J/ψ+J/ψ and the eight exclusive charmonium production channels at B factories, that the prescription yields positive and better-converging predictions.

  • 4 authors
·
Oct 2

ProRAG: Process-Supervised Reinforcement Learning for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a promising paradigm for optimizing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in complex reasoning tasks. However, traditional outcome-based RL approaches often suffer from reward sparsity and inefficient credit assignment, as coarse-grained scalar rewards fail to identify specific erroneous steps within long-horizon trajectories. This ambiguity frequently leads to "process hallucinations", where models reach correct answers through flawed logic or redundant retrieval steps. Although recent process-aware approaches attempt to mitigate this via static preference learning or heuristic reward shaping, they often lack the on-policy exploration capabilities required to decouple step-level credit from global outcomes. To address these challenges, we propose ProRAG, a process-supervised reinforcement learning framework designed to integrate learned step-level supervision into the online optimization loop. Our framework consists of four stages: (1) Supervised Policy Warmup to initialize the model with a structured reasoning format; (2) construction of an MCTS-based Process Reward Model (PRM) to quantify intermediate reasoning quality; (3) PRM-Guided Reasoning Refinement to align the policy with fine-grained process preferences; and (4) Process-Supervised Reinforcement Learning with a dual-granularity advantage mechanism. By aggregating step-level process rewards with global outcome signals, ProRAG provides precise feedback for every action. Extensive experiments on five multi-hop reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that ProRAG achieves superior overall performance compared to strong outcome-based and process-aware RL baselines, particularly on complex long-horizon tasks, validating the effectiveness of fine-grained process supervision. The code and model are available at https://github.com/lilinwz/ProRAG.

  • 3 authors
·
Jan 29

Certifying and removing disparate impact

What does it mean for an algorithm to be biased? In U.S. law, unintentional bias is encoded via disparate impact, which occurs when a selection process has widely different outcomes for different groups, even as it appears to be neutral. This legal determination hinges on a definition of a protected class (ethnicity, gender, religious practice) and an explicit description of the process. When the process is implemented using computers, determining disparate impact (and hence bias) is harder. It might not be possible to disclose the process. In addition, even if the process is open, it might be hard to elucidate in a legal setting how the algorithm makes its decisions. Instead of requiring access to the algorithm, we propose making inferences based on the data the algorithm uses. We make four contributions to this problem. First, we link the legal notion of disparate impact to a measure of classification accuracy that while known, has received relatively little attention. Second, we propose a test for disparate impact based on analyzing the information leakage of the protected class from the other data attributes. Third, we describe methods by which data might be made unbiased. Finally, we present empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of our test for disparate impact and our approach for both masking bias and preserving relevant information in the data. Interestingly, our approach resembles some actual selection practices that have recently received legal scrutiny.

  • 5 authors
·
Jul 15, 2015

Ready Cohorts: Bounding GPU Opportunity and Avoiding Host Round Trips in LLM-Agent Control

LLM-agent services repeatedly execute small deterministic transitions between model and tool calls: route an outcome, update state, and emit the next effect. We ask when this control path exposes enough concurrent work for GPU execution, and what changes when a GPU-computed route decision remains on device. We formalize the ready-cohort boundary using fixed-partition share F, exact offline share P*, local upper bound U, and online achieved share A. Under zero service time, unlimited capacity, and equal relative launch deadlines, a specialized dynamic program computes P* exactly. In a stationary Poisson replay of one pinned 851-session public trace panel, the primary condition at 100,000 target active sessions, K=256, and a 50 ms launch deadline gives F=30.19%, P*=43.00%, and U=45.85%. Exact packing recovers 81.83% of the opportunity lost at fixed window boundaries. The outcome-derived route key is a conditioning proxy, not proof of executable identity. A separate mechanism study keeps a GPU-computed binary decision on device instead of returning four bytes to the host and redispatching. Across four named GPU placements, the device-resident path is faster in all 36 configurations; within-placement row-median ratios range from 1.19x to 2.39x. Across both admissible mechanisms, all 14,557,440 tested batched invocations match a separately implemented host oracle. A fixed nested device graph that removes no host decision is slower in all 60 configurations across five placements. Together, the studies establish two measurable gates for GPU agent control: deadline-feasible cohort supply and observation placement. A joined finite online runtime is required to measure A, CPU displacement, and service-level benefit.

  • 1 authors
·
Aug 11 3