arXiv:2609.13053v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Visual goal and dynamics prediction can provide language-conditioned robot policies with both a target outcome and a representation of action-dependent scene changes. We bring these predictions into action generation and selection through a shared trajectory model. Dynin-Robotics implements this formulation on Dynin-Omni, an omnimodal masked-diffusion backbone, representing language, visual observations, goals, and actions as discrete tokens. By varying conditioning and target spans, the same model learns action prediction, action-conditioned next-observation prediction, terminal goal-state prediction, and trajectory-to-instruction reconstruction. These interfaces support test-time scaling through goal prediction, action-candidate evaluation, and joint refinement of action and future-state predictions. We continually pretrain the model on approximately 1.33 million trajectories from 48 Open X-Embodiment datasets and adapt it separately to downstream domains. On two VLABench tasks, robot pretraining improves adaptation within a fixed Stage-2 step budget, and the full objective mixture improves shifted-instruction success over Policy-only post-training under the same coupled decoder. Combining goal guidance with joint action-next-state denoising further improves shifted-instruction success over action-only decoding; the benefit depends on how the predictions are composed. Dynin-Robotics achieves competitive performance on LIBERO and zero-shot LIBERO-Plus, together with a 78.4% average success rate across four manipulation conditions on a Franka Research 3 robot. An optimized block-parallel implementation accelerates model-side action decoding by up to 29.2x relative to the base implementation under the reported profiling setup. These results support shared trajectory modeling as a common interface for learning complementary robot objectives and composing their predictions during control.

arXiv:2603.02217v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models scale capacity efficiently, but their massive parameter footprint creates a deployment-time memory bottleneck. We organize retraining-free MoE compression into three paradigms - Expert Pruning, Expert Editing, and Expert Merging - and show that persistent post-compression degradation largely stems from a neglected factor: router-expert mismatch when experts are changed but the router is left untouched. We argue that effective retraining-free compression should avoid updating expert parameters while allowing lightweight router calibration. To this end, we propose Router Knowledge Distillation (Router KD), which updates only a tiny fraction of parameters (the router) by distilling the original model's next-token distribution on unlabeled calibration data. Experiments across representative methods in all three paradigms demonstrate consistent performance recovery, with substantially larger gains in fine-grained MoEs (many small experts) than in coarse-grained MoEs due to their more complex routing decision boundaries.

arXiv:2602.17053v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit strong performance, yet often produce rationales that sound plausible but fail to reflect their true decision process, undermining reliability and trust. We introduce a formal framework for reasoning faithfulness, defined by two testable conditions: stance consistency (a coherent stance linking reasoning to answer) and causal influence (the stated reasoning causally drives the answer under output-level interventions), explicitly decoupled from accuracy. To operationalize this, we present RFEval, a benchmark of 7,186 instances across seven tasks that probes faithfulness via controlled, output-level counterfactual interventions. Evaluating twelve open-source LRMs, we find unfaithfulness in 49.7% of outputs, predominantly from stance inconsistency. Failures are concentrated in brittle, convergent domains such as math and code, and correlate more with post-training regimes than with scale: within-family ablations indicate that adding current RL-style objectives on top of supervised fine-tuning can reduce reasoning faithfulness, even when accuracy is maintained. Crucially, accuracy is neither a sufficient nor a reliable proxy for faithfulness: once controlling for model and task, the accuracy-faithfulness link is weak and statistically insignificant. Our work establishes a rigorous methodology for auditing LRM reliability and shows that trustworthy AI requires optimizing not only for correct outcomes but also for the structural integrity of the reasoning process. Our code and dataset can be found at project page: https://aidaslab.github.io/RFEval/