LGMar 19
Do Post-Training Algorithms Actually Differ? A Controlled Study Across Model Scales Uncovers Scale-Dependent Ranking InversionsXiaoyi Li
Post-training alignment has produced dozens of competing algorithms -- DPO, SimPO, KTO, GRPO, and others -- yet practitioners lack controlled comparisons to guide algorithm selection. We present OXRL, a unified framework implementing 51 post-training algorithms with identical infrastructure, enabling the first large-scale apples-to-apples evaluation. Our study spans 8 algorithms across 4 model scales (0.5B--7B), 3 evaluation domains, and a 20-variant DPO taxonomy (100 runs at 1.5B, 5 seeds each), totaling $\sim$240 training runs on H100 GPUs. Three headline findings emerge. (1)~Algorithm rankings are unstable across scale: at 1.5B, online RL (SGRPO) tops all methods at 58.0\%~$\pm$0.57 on GSM8K; by 7B, the worst small-scale method (SimPO) becomes the best (85.8\%), a complete ranking inversion driven by model scale rather than LoRA regularization (confirmed via 2$\times$2 factorial). (2)~Loss function modifications yield negligible gains: none of 20 DPO variants significantly outperform vanilla DPO after Bonferroni correction; the sole significant outlier, SimPO, is worse ($-$11.5~pp, $p < 10^{-4}$). (3)~Algorithm leverage is task-specific: the 19.3~pp GSM8K spread collapses to 0.54~pp on MATH ($36\times$) and 0.47~pp on general-domain benchmarks ($41\times$), confirming that algorithm choice matters primarily within the training distribution. These findings yield a hierarchy of leverage for practitioners: model scale (${\sim}$50~pp) $\gg$ training paradigm (${\sim}$10~pp) $\gg$ online vs.\ offline (${\sim}$9~pp) $\gg$ loss function (${\sim}$1~pp). We release all code, configs, and evaluation data as a living community benchmark.
LGMar 16
Auto Researching, not hyperparameter tuning: Convergence Analysis of 10,000 ExperimentsXiaoyi Li
When LLM agents autonomously design ML experiments, do they perform genuine architecture search -- or do they default to hyperparameter tuning within a narrow region of the design space? We answer this question by analyzing 10,469 experiments executed by two LLM agents (Claude Opus and Gemini 2.5 Pro) across a combinatorial configuration space of 108,000 discrete cells for dashcam collision detection over 27 days. Through ANOVA decomposition, we find that \textbf{architectural choices explain 94\% of performance variance} ($F = 1324$, $η^2 = 0.94$), while hyperparameter variation within a fixed architecture explains only 6\%. Cross-task validation on a second collision dataset confirms this finding (75\% architecture-explained variance) with a \emph{different} winning backbone, confirming genuine architecture discovery. The agents' key contribution is discovering that V-JEPA\,2 video features with Zipformer temporal encoders achieve 0.9245 AP -- a configuration no human proposed -- and concentrating search on productive architectural regions: at $N = 50$, LLM-guided search reaches AP $= 0.985$ versus $0.965$ for from-scratch random search. Post-bugfix convergence follows a power law ($c = 0.11$, $R^2 = 0.93$); the low exponent reflects the cost of broad exploration, not inefficiency, since the LLM discovers qualitatively better regions than random or Bayesian baselines. We characterize multi-agent search dynamics via entropy cycles and Jensen--Shannon specialization, providing the first large-scale empirical framework for LLM-guided combinatorial ML experiment design.
DCNov 3, 2020
A Scenario-Based Development Framework for Autonomous DrivingXiaoyi Li
This article summarizes the research progress of scenario-based testing and development technology for autonomous vehicles. We systematically analyzed previous research works and proposed the definition of scenario, the elements of the scenario ontology, the data source of the scenario, the processing method of the scenario data, and scenario-based V-Model. Moreover, we summarized the automated test scenario construction method by random scenario generation and dangerous scenario generation.