Dhruv Saini

Dhruv Saini, Rohan Pandey

Large language models often improve on difficult tasks by spending inference-time compute on a reasoning trace before producing the final answer. That extra computation can be useful, but it also raises latency, token cost, and deployment complexity. We introduce \textbf{ThinkSwitch}, a low-compute procedure for co-training paired instruct and thinking checkpoints. Starting from compatible Qwen3-4B instruct and thinking models, each iteration asks the thinking checkpoint to generate answers, removes the reasoning trace, distills the answer-only pairs into the instruct checkpoint with QLoRA, and reconstructs a thinking checkpoint with spherical weight interpolation. The only human-supplied inputs are task prompts; the labels are generated by the model itself. On a 30-question AIME 2026 evaluation, ThinkSwitch improves the instruct checkpoint from 10/30 to 20/30 and the thinking checkpoint from 14/30 to 22/30. On a 30-question PubMedQA subset, it improves the instruct checkpoint from 13/30 to 18/30 and the thinking checkpoint from 18/30 to 25/30. The complete experiment uses 15 training prompts per domain and costs \$2.86 on a single cloud RTX 3070. The results are small-scale, but they indicate that targeted distillation loops can move part of the benefit of explicit reasoning into weights while preserving a separate thinking mode.

Abhinna Sundar Samantaray, Finnja Annika Fluhrer, Dhruv Saini et al.

Astrology has long been used to interpret human personality, estimate compatibility, and guide social decision-making. Zodiac-based systems in particular remain culturally influential across much of the world, including in South Asian societies where astrological reasoning can shape marriage matching, naming conventions, ritual timing, and broader life planning. Despite this persistence, astrology has never established either a physically plausible mechanism or a statistically reliable predictive foundation. In this work, we examine zodiac-based personality prediction using a controlled machine-learning framework. We construct a synthetic dataset in which individuals are assigned zodiac signs and personality labels drawn from a shared pool of 100 broadly human traits. Each sign is associated with a subset of 10 common descriptors, intentionally overlapping with those assigned to other signs, thereby reproducing the ambiguity characteristic of practical astrological systems. We then train Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and neural-network classifiers to infer personality labels from zodiac-based features and nuisance covariates. Across all experiments, predictive performance remains at or near random expectation, while shuffled-label controls yield comparable accuracies. We argue that the apparent success of astrology arises not from measurable predictive structure, but from trait universality, category overlap, cognitive biases such as the Barnum effect and confirmation bias, and the interpretive flexibility of astrologers and pundits. We conclude that zodiac-based systems do not provide reliable information for predicting human behavior and instead function as culturally durable narrative frameworks. This paper is intended as a humorous academic exercise.