Training-free acceleration makes diffusion-based multimodal large language models (dMLLMs) more deployable, but it may silently change generated content. We study this serving-time consistency problem on 300 real images, comparing Fast-dLLM outputs with the same model's unaccelerated outputs. Across the mild parallelism induced in our long-form setting (1.05--1.25 committed tokens per step), confidence-threshold tuning changes decoding behavior but not baseline agreement. State-refresh ablations and an image-swap intervention instead identify stale visual and generated-text states as contributors to drift. For the tested Fast-dLLM implementation, shortening the KV-cache refresh interval yields a monotonic speed--agreement frontier and near-exact agreement at a measured 1.3x speedup. The initial diagnosis also appears with dLLM-Cache and LaViDa, although dLLM-Cache recovers agreement only after both caches are tightened, which removes its speed advantage. Independent prompts and images reproduce the threshold-insensitivity and refresh recovery. A targeted audit finds genuine content substitution in half of 50 low-agreement pairs. In a separate blinded two-annotator evaluation, the pooled accelerated-minus-baseline factual-error difference is 0.00 (95% CI [-0.17,+0.17]); this sample detects no difference but does not establish factual equivalence. Finally, none of the tested adaptive or smoothed-refresh variants beats the fixed interval at matched compute. Our contribution is a paired diagnostic and an implementation-scoped consistency control, not an accuracy or safety guarantee.
As AI agents become participants in the development of their successors, they reshape both the production of intelligence and the role of human researchers. We introduce Atria Dawn Preview, a foundation agentic language model designed for scientific research and engineering workflows, with the goal of expanding the frontier of agent productivity in the real world. This model is trained via a Verifiable Experience Pipeline that connects tool-mediated interactions to executable environments and externally verified outcomes. Across 16 benchmarks spanning real-world research, engineering, and digital work, Atria Dawn Preview is competitive with frontier agents and achieves the highest reported score on five of them. Beyond standalone performance, we examine the real research-and-development process behind this model as a case study of human--AI collaboration, analyzing 769 task records from 56 participants together with agent logs. When asked to evaluate completed tasks under comparable conditions, participants rated about one-third of completed AI-assisted tasks as infeasible without AI. More strikingly, agents frequently propose methods and implement revisions, while humans retain most final decisions and guide exploration through judgment and feedback. These observations indicate a shift from task-level execution to project-level partnership, with human effort concentrating on what is worth pursuing and how evidence should guide research. Progress toward more autonomous AI research must therefore advance both the capacity for discovery and the capacity for meaningful human oversight, preserving accountable human authority over the risks and direction of continued development.
Hong-Lin Guo, Tao Gui, Yicheng Chen et al.· 0 citations
Multimodal LLM judge panels can cross-reference peers, but a quoted peer judgment may itself be untrusted. We expose source-blind anchoring as a text-level attack surface in vision-language model (VLM) panels. Quoting independent visual judgments creates large anchoring gaps (19--26 percentage points) under both self and peer framing. A matched-content, label-only control changes the broken rate by only $-0.17$pp (95\% CI $[-0.68,0.35]$), showing that the self/peer label itself does not explain the effect. Under our tested construction, deliberately generated, concise wrong quotes overturn originally-correct verdicts 1.5--2.7$\times$ more often than naturally occurring wrong peer statements, with bootstrap 95\% CIs excluding parity across two datasets and seven VLM judges. Because the two statement populations differ in selection and form, this ratio measures differential damage under the tested attack rather than a provenance-only causal effect. We then introduce panel-consensus verification, which cross-checks a quote against independently collected blind votes. It blocks 84.9\% of fabricated attacks, cuts their net harm by 97.5\%, and preserves the positive but statistically inconclusive point estimate for genuine peer information under leave-one-out re-verification. These results identify a low-cost attack surface and a concrete defense for safer multimodal collaborative evaluation.
Shu Yang· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
