MinT: Managed Infrastructure for Training and Serving Millions of LLMs

We present MindLab Toolkit (MinT), a managed infrastructure system for Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) post-training and online serving. MinT targets a setting where many trained policies are produced over a small number of expensive base-model deployments. Instead of materializing each policy as a merged full checkpoint, MinT keeps the base model resident and moves exported LoRA adapter revisions through rollout, update, export, evaluation, serving, and rollback, hiding distributed training, serving, scheduling, and data movement behind a service interface. MinT scales this path along three axes. Scale Up extends LoRA RL to frontier-scale dense and MoE architectures, including MLA and DSA attention paths, with training and serving validated beyond 1T total parameters. Scale Down moves only the exported LoRA adapter, which can be under 1% of base-model size in rank-1 settings; adapter-only handoff reduces the measured step by 18.3x on a 4B dense model and 2.85x on a 30B MoE, while concurrent multi-policy GRPO shortens wall time by 1.77x and 1.45x without raising peak memory. Scale Out separates durable policy addressability from CPU/GPU working sets: a tensor-parallel deployment supports 10^6-scale addressable catalogs (measured single-engine sweeps through 100K) and thousand-adapter active waves at cluster scale, with cold loading treated as scheduled service work and packed MoE LoRA tensors improving live engine loading by 8.5-8.7x. MinT thus manages million-scale LoRA policy catalogs while training and serving selected adapter revisions over shared 1T-class base models.

Beyond a Million Tokens: Benchmarking and Enhancing Long-Term Memory in LLMs

Evaluating the abilities of large language models (LLMs) for tasks that require long-term memory and thus long-context reasoning, for example in conversational settings, is hampered by the existing benchmarks, which often lack narrative coherence, cover narrow domains, and only test simple recall-oriented tasks. This paper introduces a comprehensive solution to these challenges. First, we present a novel framework for automatically generating long (up to 10M tokens), coherent, and topically diverse conversations, accompanied by probing questions targeting a wide range of memory abilities. From this, we construct BEAM, a new benchmark comprising 100 conversations and 2,000 validated questions. Second, to enhance model performance, we propose LIGHT-a framework inspired by human cognition that equips LLMs with three complementary memory systems: a long-term episodic memory, a short-term working memory, and a scratchpad for accumulating salient facts. Our experiments on BEAM reveal that even LLMs with 1M token context windows (with and without retrieval-augmentation) struggle as dialogues lengthen. In contrast, LIGHT consistently improves performance across various models, achieving an average improvement of 3.5%-12.69% over the strongest baselines, depending on the backbone LLM. An ablation study further confirms the contribution of each memory component.

Not What the Doctor Ordered: Surveying LLM-based De-identification and Quantifying Clinical Information Loss

De-identification in the healthcare setting is an application of NLP where automated algorithms are used to remove personally identifying information of patients (and, sometimes, providers). With the recent rise of generative large language models (LLMs), there has been a corresponding rise in the number of papers that apply LLMs to de-identification. Although these approaches often report near-perfect results, significant challenges concerning reproducibility and utility of the research papers persist. This paper identifies three key limitations in the current literature: inconsistent reporting metrics hindering direct comparisons, the inadequacy of traditional classification metrics in capturing errors which LLMs may be more prone to (i.e., altering clinically relevant information), and lack of manual validation of automated metrics which aim to quantify these errors. To address these issues, we first present a survey of LLM-based de-identification research, highlighting the heterogeneity in reporting standards. Second, we evaluated a diverse set of models to quantify the extent of inappropriate removal of clinical information. Next, we conduct a manual validation of an existing evaluation metric to measure the removal of clinical information, employing clinical experts to assess their efficacy. We highlight poor performance and describe the inherent limitations of such metrics in identifying clinically significant changes. Lastly, we propose a novel methodology for the detection of clinically relevant information removal.