DAIR.AI周报:HySparse2长上下文优化与SIFT代码Agent自改进
🥇Top AI Papers of the Week
1. HySparse2
In agent workloads, a short tool call can return a long search result or execution trace that has to be prefilled before decoding resumes, and the context keeps growing across turns. Xiaomi’s MiMo team built HySparse2, the attention architecture behind the upcoming MiMo-V3, to lower prefill cost and KV-cache size while improving long-context retrieval.
在智能体工作负载中,一次简短的工具调用可能返回冗长的搜索结果或执行轨迹,这些内容必须在恢复解码前预填充,且上下文会在多轮交互中持续增长。小米 MiMo 团队构建了 HySparse2——这是即将推出的 MiMo-V3 背后的注意力架构,旨在降低预填充成本和 KV 缓存大小,同时提升长上下文检索能力。
- Two levels of KV sharing: Following YOCO, the model is split into a self-decoder and a cross-decoder. KV Bridging builds the cross-decoder’s full-attention KV caches from the hidden states of the self-decoder’s full-attention layers, and KV Reuse lets each sparse layer reuse the KV cache and selection indices of the full-attention layer before it.
- Prefill exits early: Because every cross-decoder KV cache comes from the self-decoder, prefill can stop once the self-decoder finishes. Token-level selection replaces block-level selection, and a forced window of recent tokens replaces the separate sliding-window branch, so local and global tokens share one cache.
- Cheaper at 1M tokens: On 80B-A3B MoE models trained on the same data, HySparse2 cuts prefill FLOPs by 5.02x against the Hybrid SWA design used in the MiMo-V2 series and by 2.92x against HySparse. Its KV cache takes 2.69 GB, against 12.09 GB for Hybrid SWA.
- Why it matters: After light post-training, HySparse2 scores 11.30 points higher than HySparse on MRCR-v2 and 19.81 points higher on RULER-v2, with lower AgentPPL and LongPPL than both baselines up to 256k tokens. For long-running agents that prefill and store a long observation every turn, it lowers both costs and improves retrieval accuracy.
- 两级 KV 共享:遵循 YOCO 的设计,模型被拆分为自解码器和交叉解码器。KV Bridging 利用自解码器全注意力层的隐藏状态构建交叉解码器的全注意力 KV 缓存;KV Reuse 则让每个稀疏层复用其前方全注意力层的 KV 缓存和选择索引。
- 预填充提前退出:由于每个交叉解码器的 KV 缓存均源自自解码器,一旦自解码器完成即可停止预填充。Token 级选择取代了块级选择,强制使用近期 token 的窗口替代独立的滑动窗口分支,从而使局部 token 和全局 token 共享同一份缓存。
- 在 1M token 下更具性价比:在相同数据上训练的 80B-A3B MoE 模型上,相较于 MiMo-V2 系列使用的 Hybrid SWA 设计,HySparse2 将预填充 FLOPs 降低了 5.02 倍,相较于 HySparse 降低了 2.92 倍。其 KV 缓存占用为 2.69 GB,而 Hybrid SWA 为 12.09 GB。
- 为何重要:经过轻量级后训练,HySparse2 在 MRCR-v2 上比 HySparse 高出 11.30 分,在 RULER-v2 上高出 19.81 分,且在长达 256k token 的情况下,其 AgentPPL 和 LongPPL 均低于两个基线模型。对于每轮都进行预填充并存储长观测结果的长期运行智能体,它既能降低成本,又能提升检索准确率。
Paper
论文
Message from our Sponsor
赞助商留言
Step 5 Preview is StepFun’s new flagship model for agentic work, a 600B-total, 27B-active MoE with a 1M-token context and vision input. Open weights are scheduled for October 15.
Step 5 Preview 是阶跃星辰(StepFun)面向智能体工作的全新旗舰模型,采用 600B 总参数、27B 激活参数的 MoE 架构,支持 1M token 上下文和视觉输入。开源权重计划于 10 月 15 日发布。
I tested it early as a coding agent, in a minimal harness against GLM 5.3 on two real tasks in the same repo. Both models solved both tasks with no regressions. Step 5 Preview checked its work and declared itself done both times, while GLM 5.3 kept going until the step limit ended the run. In a separate long-context test, it found all five clues hidden in about 368K tokens of incident tickets and connected them to the root cause in about 90 seconds.
我早期将其作为编码智能体进行测试,在与 GLM 5.3 相同的仓库中对两项真实任务进行了最小化基准测试。两个模型均无回归地解决了这两项任务。Step 5 Preview 两次都检查了自己的工作并宣布完成任务,而 GLM 5.3 则持续运行直到达到步骤限制才结束。在另一项长上下文测试中,它在约 368K token 的事件工单中找到了所有五个隐藏线索,并在约 90 秒内将其与根本原因关联起来。
It sits on the Pareto frontier for cost against capability, so it is worth trying in your coding agent.
它在成本与能力的帕累托前沿上占据优势,因此值得在你的编码智能体中尝试。
Try Step 5 Preview
试用 Step 5 Preview
2. SIFT
Coding agents that rewrite their own implementation can improve on benchmarks, but prior methods such as the Darwin Gödel Machine (DGM) are expensive to run. Researchers from MIT and Sakana AI trace most of that cost to one step and make it cheaper.
能够重写自身实现的编码代理可以在基准测试中取得提升,但此前的方法如达尔文哥德尔机(DGM)运行成本高昂。来自麻省理工学院和 Sakana AI 的研究人员发现大部分成本源于一个步骤,并使其更加廉价。
- Evaluation is the bottleneck: Earlier approaches score every candidate self-modification by re-running benchmark tasks with the modified agent. That evaluation dominates runtime, so SIFT adds a cheaper signal beforehand.
- Judge first, benchmark later: An LLM judge compares candidate patches pairwise, a regularized Bradley-Terry model turns the win-loss record into strength scores, and those scores drive parent sampling in a disaggregated tree search. Full benchmark runs are reserved for the most promising nodes.
- A tenth of the compute: With o3-mini, SIFT reaches 35.1% on Polyglot after 30 expansions, against 30.7% for DGM after 80 nodes, in under 50 CPU hours and under 5 hours of wall clock. The Qwen3-30B configuration runs its full search at 224 CPU hours and $34 of API spend, about a tenth of the DGM baseline.
- Why it matters: Judge quality decides the outcome. On TerminalBench, gpt-5.4-high as the judge finds a 36.7% agent from a 29.2% start, while gpt-5 finds 34.5% and ranks a weaker candidate first. If you run self-improvement loops, the judge deserves as much attention as the search.
- 评估是瓶颈所在:早期的方法通过用修改后的代理重新运行基准任务来对每个候选的自我修改进行评分。这种评估占据了主要的运行时间,因此 SIFT 在之前添加了一个更廉价的信号。
- 先评判,后基准测试:LLM 裁判成对比较候选补丁,正则化的 Bradley-Terry 模型将胜负记录转化为强度分数,这些分数驱动解耦树搜索中的父节点采样。完整的基准测试运行仅保留给最有希望的节点。
- 十分之一的计算量:使用 o3-mini,SIFT 在 30 次扩展后在 Polyglot 上达到 35.1%,而 DGM 在 80 个节点后达到 30.7%;前者耗时不到 50 CPU 小时和不到 5 小时墙钟时间。Qwen3-30B 配置在其完整搜索过程中消耗 224 CPU 小时和 34 美元的 API 费用,约为 DGM 基线的十分之一。
- 为何重要:裁判的质量决定结果。在 TerminalBench 上,作为裁判的 gpt-5.4-high 从 29.2% 的起点找到了 36.7% 的代理,而 gpt-5 找到了 34.5% 且将较弱的候选者排在首位。如果你运行自我改进循环,那么裁判值得与搜索同等的关注。
Paper | Tweet
论文 | 推文
3. GAVEL
LLM plans for long-horizon robot tasks often break embodiment constraints, fail to recover from mistakes, or lose track of objects they cannot see. GAVEL adds an explicit graph world model around the LLM and more than doubles the success rate of a small model without changing its weights.
LLM 为长周期机器人任务制定的计划通常会违背具身约束、无法从错误中恢复,或丢失对其不可见对象的追踪。GAVEL 在 LLM 周围添加了显式的图世界模型,并在不改变其权重的情况下将小型模型的成功率提高了一倍以上。
- A graph that tracks the world: The graph holds object relations, action preconditions and effects, and probabilistic beliefs about where unobserved objects are. Before the robot executes an LLM-generated action, the graph predicts what the action would do.
- Repair without calling the model: It catches violations before execution. When the fix follows directly from the world model, GAVEL repairs it on its own, and only errors that need semantic reasoning go back to the LLM for replanning.
- Large gains on BEHAVIOR-1K: With Qwen3-8B, single-task success rises from 41.2% to 91.8% across 100 long-horizon tasks, and multi-task success rises from 19.9% to 92.6% across 500 instructions. Reasoning over the distribution of possible object locations also reorders subtasks and cuts travel distance by about 5.4%.
- Why it matters: Many long-horizon agent failures come from losing track of state rather than from weak reasoning. A symbolic model outside the LLM catches those failures cheaply, and the same idea applies to software agents that need to track the state of files, tickets, or accounts.
- 追踪世界的图:该图存储对象关系、动作前提条件和效果,以及关于未观察对象位置的概率信念。在机器人执行由 LLM 生成的动作之前,图会预测该动作会产生什么效果。
- 无需调用模型即可修复:它在执行前捕获违规情况。当修复方案直接源自世界模型时,GAVEL 自行修复,只有需要语义推理的错误才会返回给 LLM 以进行重新规划。
- 在 BEHAVIOR-1K 上获得巨大提升:使用 Qwen3-8B,在 100 个长周期任务中,单任务成功率从 41.2% 提升至 91.8%,在 500 条指令中,多任务成功率从 19.9% 提升至 92.6%。对可能对象位置分布的推理还重新排序了子任务,并将行程距离减少了约 5.4%。
- 为何重要:许多长周期智能体(agent)的失败源于状态追踪丢失,而非推理能力薄弱。LLM 外部的符号模型可以低成本地捕获这些失败,这一思路同样适用于需要追踪文件、工单或账户状态的软件智能体。
Paper | Tweet
论文 | 推文
4. WFM
More agents now store long-term memory as an LLM Wiki, a folder of markdown pages linked to each other. Each page holds dense text, and the links provide structure; WFM is a Wiki Foundation Model trained to use both when retrieving.
越来越多的智能体现将长期记忆存储为 LLM Wiki,即一组相互链接的 Markdown 页面文件夹。每个页面包含密集文本,链接提供结构;WFM 是一个 Wiki 基础模型,在检索时被训练以同时利用这两者。
- Wiki as a graph: WFM formalizes a Wiki Graph schema in which entity relations and passage nodes live in one graph. The explicit links stay intact while each page keeps its full text, which is harder to capture with sparse graph embeddings.
- Query-conditioned retrieval: Retrieval runs message passing over the graph, conditioned on the query, with attentive aggregation and a regularizer on attention variance. Page text and link structure shape the result together.
- Faster distributed training: The team built a GPU-to-GPU exchange protocol over NCCL that avoids CPU serialization and memory copies when the graph is split across GPUs. Training runs 10.5x faster on distributed clusters, targeting the overhead that makes graph encoders hard to deploy at scale.
- Why it matters: WFM reports strong results on five long-term agent memory and multi-hop reasoning benchmarks. If your agent’s memory is already a folder of linked markdown files, this retrieval model is designed for that format instead of one adapted from plain RAG or sparse knowledge graphs.
- 作为图的 Wiki:WFM 形式化了 Wiki Graph 模式,其中实体关系和段落节点共存于一个图中。显式链接保持完整,同时每个页面保留其全文,这比使用稀疏图嵌入更难捕捉。
- 查询条件检索:检索过程在图上运行消息传递,以查询为条件,并采用注意力聚合及注意力方差的正则化。页面文本和链接结构共同塑造结果。
- 更快的分布式训练:团队基于 NCCL 构建了一种 GPU 间交换协议,当图分布在多个 GPU 上时,避免了 CPU 序列化和内存拷贝。在分布式集群上训练速度提升了 10.5 倍,旨在解决使图编码器难以大规模部署的开销问题。
- 为何重要:WFM 在五个长期智能体记忆和多跳推理基准测试中报告了强劲的结果。如果你的智能体记忆已经是链接的 Markdown 文件文件夹,这个检索模型就是为该格式设计的,而不是从普通 RAG 或稀疏知识图谱改编而来。
Paper | Tweet
论文 | 推文
5. JEV-as-a-Judge
Running a frontier LLM as the judge on every eval gets expensive at scale. This paper tests a cheaper setup: a decision-only judge handles most calls, and only uncertain ones go to a frontier model.
在每次评估中都运行前沿 LLM 作为裁判,在规模扩大时会变得昂贵。这篇论文测试了一种更便宜的设置:一个仅做决策的裁判处理大部分调用,只有不确定的案例才会交给前沿模型。
- A judge with no reasoning text: JEV, TypeSafe AI’s decision-only model, returns a verdict and label probabilities. It costs $0.044 per 1,000 judgments at a median latency of 0.152 seconds, against $12.182 and 1.885 seconds for GPT-6, about 277 times cheaper.
- Close on ordinary judgments: Compared with sixteen generative and reward-model judges under blinded human adjudication, JEV stays within 3 points of GPT-6 on preference and evidence-grounded factuality, with 92.2% against 93.5% on RewardBench and 87.5% against 86.7% on HaluEval.
- Weaker on hard checks: The gap grows to 9 to 20 points when a judgment requires checking a derivation or rejecting an elaborately written wrong answer, such as 78.6% against 93.1% on JudgeBench. On several benchmarks, those errors cluster in JEV’s low-confidence decisions.
- Why it matters: Because the errors cluster there, a cascade that accepts confident verdicts and escalates the rest to GPT-6 Astra kept 99% of GPT-6’s accuracy at about 57% of its fee on 510 held-out preference pairs. The escalation threshold did not transfer across every fallback model, so the authors recommend setting it on your own data.
- 无推理文本的裁判:JEV 是 TypeSafe AI 的仅决策模型,返回判决和标签概率。其成本为每 1,000 次判决 0.044 美元,中位延迟为 0.152 秒;相比之下,GPT-6 的成本为 12.182 美元,延迟为 1.885 秒,JEV 便宜约 277 倍。
- 在普通判决上表现接近:与十六个生成式和奖励模型裁判在盲审人工裁决下相比,JEV 在偏好和基于证据的事实性上与 GPT-6 相差不到 3 个百分点,在 RewardBench 上得分为 92.2%(对比 GPT-6 的 93.5%),在 HaluEval 上得分为 87.5%(对比 GPT-6 的 86.7%)。
- 在硬性检查上表现较弱:当判断需要验证推导过程或拒绝精心撰写的错误答案时,差距扩大至 9 到 20 分,例如在 JudgeBench 上为 78.6% 对比 93.1%。在多个基准测试中,这些错误集中在 JEV 的低置信度决策中。
- 为何重要:由于错误集中于此,一种接受高置信度判决并将其余情况升级至 GPT-6 Astra 的级联机制,在 510 个保留偏好对上将 GPT-6 的准确率保持在约 99%,而费用仅为原来的 57%。该升级阈值并未在所有回退模型间通用,因此作者建议基于自有数据设置该阈值。
Paper | Tweet
论文 | 推文
原文超出正文长度上限,此处截断——上游还有内容,完整版见上方「原文 ↗」。
更进一步:量化金融体系
看懂新闻只是起点——沿量化金融路径,把它变成能交付的工程能力