VALG: An Agentic System for ML Theory Research

Machine learning theory studies learning procedures through mathematical setups in which the data model, training protocol, oracle access, loss, metric, and randomness define the phenomenon that a theorem is meant to explain. Solving an open problem therefore requires the problem formulation, theorem target, and proof mechanism to be developed in concert. Researchers formulate hypotheses, test them through preliminary theoretical or empirical analysis, and refine both assumptions and proofs. We investigate whether this process can be organized as an autonomous agentic workflow for ML theory research. We develop VALG, an agentic system that combines multi-level Verification, Adaptive formulation of Learning-theory problems, and Graph-structured proof development. Within each source-relative theorem branch, VALG maintains a fixed mathematical specification, checks the theorem-level composition of a typed proof-dependency graph, and constructs and reviews local proofs in dependency order. When a proof attempt fails, VALG identifies whether the obstruction lies in a derivation, the proof structure, or the theorem formulation and routes the next attempt accordingly. Formulation-level obstructions initiate an explicitly related variant or relaxation, preserving the mathematical relation between the resulting theorem and the source problem. We evaluate VALG on nine subproblems from five COLT 2026 open problems. Two runs produce internally finalized theorem candidates that match the scope of their source briefs; the remaining seven yield restricted-method results, special cases, or conditional theorems. These case studies show how VALG keeps source-scope matches, relaxations, conditional results, and blocked attempts mathematically distinct. VALG is open source at https://github.com/DechenZhang/VALG-ML-Theory-Agent.

Divergence Decoding: Training-Free Capability Fusion

While large language models excel in reasoning, these generalists often lack knowledge for specialized scientific domains. Conversely, domain models~(specialists), while knowledgeable, suffer from specialization side-effects including diminished logic and reduced robustness.To address this dilemma, we introduce Divergence Decoding, a training-free framework for capability fusion. It reconstructs the "draft-and-verify" skeleton of speculative decoding into an adaptive routing mechanism. The core is using Jensen-Shannon divergence to monitor the distributional disagreement between the two models at each token. When the specialist exhibits significant divergence, our method identifies it as a potential reasoning risk and instantaneously routes control to the generalist. This allows the dynamic injection of general reasoning while preserving domain expertise, achieving inference-time policy composition of the generalist and the specialist.We evaluate Divergence Decoding across diverse model families (Qwen and Llama series) on challenging scientific benchmarks (GPQA, ChemBench, and ChemCoTBench). Experimental results demonstrate that Divergence Decoding outperforms both the domain-specialized and general-purpose models, effectively surpassing the performance of most single-model baseline. This suggests that Divergence Decoding provides a general, training-free paradigm for fusing diverse LLM capabilities through adaptive inference-time collaboration.

Scaling Laws for Precision in High-Dimensional Linear Regression

Low-precision training is critical for optimizing the trade-off between model quality and training costs, necessitating the joint allocation of model size, dataset size, and numerical precision. While empirical scaling laws suggest that quantization impacts effective model and data capacities or acts as an additive error, the theoretical mechanisms governing these effects remain largely unexplored. In this work, we initiate a theoretical study of scaling laws for low-precision training within a high-dimensional sketched linear regression framework. By analyzing multiplicative (signal-dependent) and additive (signal-independent) quantization, we identify a critical dichotomy in their scaling behaviors. Our analysis reveals that while both schemes introduce an additive error and degrade the effective data size, they exhibit distinct effects on effective model size: multiplicative quantization maintains the full-precision model size, whereas additive quantization reduces the effective model size. Numerical experiments validate our theoretical findings. By rigorously characterizing the complex interplay among model scale, dataset size, and quantization error, our work provides a principled theoretical basis for optimizing training protocols under practical hardware constraints.