One QK Channel, Many Sources: Guarding Low-Precision Attention Collapse

A bfloat16 transformer can train normally for many steps and then collapse abruptly. Distinct low-precision errors can trigger the same failure, leaving unclear whether each source needs its own repair or one shared route can be blocked. We isolate a reproduced GPT-2-class collapse to the streaming-softmax accumulator, where fp32 accumulation repairs it, and use the fault as an assay for moving controlled errors across sources. Errors placed outside attention still drive the same query-key (QK) spectral runaway, while correcting only QK keeps training stable with the source fault active. This source-channel dissociation shows that fault source is not failure channel. It holds across the tested architectures and scales and reproduces on a second GPU architecture. A causal probe projects each update off the current QK weights' leading three singular directions: the query projection's largest singular value stays at 11.1, whereas removing equal energy elsewhere leaves it at 237. The QK channel therefore drives the early runaway rather than merely tracking it. Entry depends on temporal sign-coherence across steps, not aggregate deviation. QK-Guard closes the channel with a dormant controller that switches on parameter-free QK normalization when attention-logit saturation begins. It contains every tested runaway and matches always-on QK normalization over 60k steps, while non-QK actions at the same trigger fail. The results support intervention at the shared QK locus rather than separate repair at each fault source.

Coding Agents as Test-Suite Auditors: Finding What Official Suites Miss While Approaching What They Catch

Online-judge verdicts and the datasets and benchmarks built on them are treated as ground truth for evaluating and training large language models for code. Yet prior audits have sounded a warning: official suites accept buggy submissions. These audits, however, stop at the warning and offer no practical remedy. Our remedy has two parts: an off-the-shelf coding agent, serving as a test-suite auditor, both builds adversarial test suites to expose what official suites miss and supplies these suites where no official suite exists; a certification chain determines whether each agent-flagged submission is genuinely buggy without relying on the official judge: multiple independently written accepted solutions agree on the expected output for every test, brute-force solutions settle disagreements, and a per-problem validator certifies each failing input legal. One such agent identifies 589 verified accepted-but-buggy submissions among AtCoder's 20,375 audited accepted submissions; extending the same certification to all five agents yields a union floor of 906 such submissions. Five agents, scored separately, each stay within 1.7pp of official-suite coverage on logic bugs those suites catch. On post-cutoff Codeforces problems with no available official suites, the same test-building method leads all five reproduced baselines at every tested input budget. Where an official suite exists, the agent audits suite adequacy instead of assuming it; where none exists, agent suites catch the most buggy submissions among methods we reproduced and tested.