Source author record

Raxit Goswami

Raxit Goswami appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

GRIT -- Geometry-Aware PEFT with K-FACPreconditioning, Fisher-Guided Reprojection, andDynamic Rank Adaptation

Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) is the default way to adapt LLMs, but widely used LoRA and QLoRA are largely geometry-agnostic: they optimize in fixed, randomly oriented low-rank subspaces with first-order descent, mostly ignoring local loss curvature. This can inflate the effective update budget and amplify drift along weakly constrained directions. We introduce GRIT, a dynamic, curvature-aware LoRA procedure that preserves the LoRA parameterization but: (1) preconditions gradients in rank space using K-FAC as a natural-gradient proxy; (2) periodically reprojects the low-rank basis onto dominant Fisher eigendirections to suppress drift; and (3) adapts the effective rank from the spectrum so capacity concentrates where signal resides. Across instruction-following, comprehension, and reasoning benchmarks on LLaMA backbones, GRIT matches or surpasses LoRA and QLoRA while reducing trainable parameters by 46% on average (25--80% across tasks), without practical quality loss across prompt styles and data mixes. To model forgetting, we fit a curvature-modulated power law. Empirically, GRIT yields lower drift and a better updates-vs-retention frontier than strong PEFT-optimizer baselines (Orthogonal-LoRA, IA3, DoRA, Eff-FT, Shampoo).

preprint2026arXiv

Stochastic CHAOS: Why Deterministic Inference Kills, and Distributional Variability Is the Heartbeat of Artifical Cognition

Deterministic inference is a comforting ideal in classical software: the same program on the same input should always produce the same output. As large language models move into real-world deployment, this ideal has been imported wholesale into inference stacks. Recent work from the Thinking Machines Lab has presented a detailed analysis of nondeterminism in LLM inference, showing how batch-invariant kernels and deterministic attention can enforce bitwise-identical outputs, positioning deterministic inference as a prerequisite for reproducibility and enterprise reliability. In this paper, we take the opposite stance. We argue that, for LLMs, deterministic inference kills. It kills the ability to model uncertainty, suppresses emergent abilities, collapses reasoning into a single brittle path, and weakens safety alignment by hiding tail risks. LLMs implement conditional distributions over outputs, not fixed functions. Collapsing these distributions to a single canonical completion may appear reassuring, but it systematically conceals properties central to artificial cognition. We instead advocate Stochastic CHAOS, treating distributional variability as a signal to be measured and controlled. Empirically, we show that deterministic inference is systematically misleading. Single-sample deterministic evaluation underestimates both capability and fragility, masking failure probability under paraphrases and noise. Phase-like transitions associated with emergent abilities disappear under greedy decoding. Multi-path reasoning degrades when forced onto deterministic backbones, reducing accuracy and diagnostic insight. Finally, deterministic evaluation underestimates safety risk by hiding rare but dangerous behaviors that appear only under multi-sample evaluation.