Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 23, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Reinforcement learning for large language models often uses separate systems for inference and training. Even with identical weights and BF16 tensors, implementation differences can make an intended on-policy update off-policy and destabilize training. Existing remedies align the entire inference and training stacks, change global precision, or modify the learning algorithm. We ask whether aligning selected parts of the execution stack can stabilize BF16 RL while other implementation differences remain. We align training-side rounding locations with inference in three regions---RoPE, SwiGLU, and residual RMSNorm---by retaining selected intermediates in FP32 until their BF16 outputs. Across four Qwen-family models, aligning all three regions prevents the collapse observed under the default BF16 baseline; RoPE-path alignment alone also suffices in the studied runs, despite remaining numerical discrepancies. The interventions keep the inference engine, matrix-multiplication and attention kernels, and learning objective unchanged.