/our question: “Which classes of tasks do you expect to violate the Markovian assumption most severely, where fixed-size summaries lose critical information, and how would you adapt the approach there?

Milad Aghajohari: “Markovian Thinking works when the LLM carries forward what it needs to continue reasoning. We can Imagine two challenges:

1) tasks where these bits overflow the Markovian state size. For example, one hundred tokens for solving math olympiad questions is simply not enough.

2)The model failing to carry forward these bits. Our zero-shot experiments show that the reasoning that current LLMs are doing is already close to Markovian. However, we can imagine more challenging scenarios.

As a very simple example, assume a task where the model is presented with a hundred questions in a single prompt and at the end should answer all of them. The model should carry forward a list of the answers to questions it already solved. If the model fails to maintain that state, they will be erased from its context. If the zero-shot performance is low, we rely on RL to reinforce or emerge strategies that carry forward the information. However, learning such strategies via RL might be inefficient.

Note that in our own academic experiments we don’t observe an emergence of summarization or a different kind of reasoning and when we inspect the Delethink continuations they are normal reasoning traces. We can foresee that in an industry scale training, a wise context management policy emerges/resurfaces from the pretraining distribution.”

Randall Balestriero: “We finally were able to have a single pretraining objective that works across any architecture, data modality, and scale – without teacher-student. This was something that many thought impossible. In fact, not only removing teacher-student was hard to believe for many, but also being able to have a single objective across architectures was quite a surprise. At a higher level though, what truly excites me about this paper is that it is the first time in recent years that an empirical breakthrough emerged from math and theory – and whose implementation is exactly the math given in the paper – no simplification, no epsilon added here and there, no hidden tricks. For years, people have given up on theory saying that scale and lots of trial-and-error is all you need to move forward. We started seeing the limits of that mindset recently, and LeJEPA demonstrated that there is a room for theory to lead the way at the SOTA level!”

/our question: “Which real-world application do you expect will be the first to adopt JEPA-style models, and how does your theoretical framework guide concrete system design there?”

Randall Balestriero: “We have already seen a quick adoption by communities outside of natural images, e.g., earth observations, satellite images, medical images and so on. The rationale is that previous methods, e.g., DINOv3 do not rely on a lot of math and are quite cumbersome to cross-validate – but at least this process has been done by Meta. So if you deal with natural images, you can just re-use Meta’s hyper-parameters for DINOv3 and get successful training! But when you look at different types of data, then you do need to cross-validate again, and that’s where the simplicity and stability of LeJEPA is hard to beat. Beyond those empirical deployments, we also saw people building on top of our theory to adapt LeJEPA to their specific data assumptions. Because every step of LeJEPA’s construction is mathematically proven and understood, it becomes trivial to modify it for a particular use-case (e.g. you expect outliers in your data and thus need to change the isotropic Gaussian for something else). The whole mechanism of LeJEPA and SIGReg remains the same (you do the 1d projections, compare the univariate densities with your target densities via the characteristic function and Epps-Pulley test).”

/our question: “In a closed-loop self-play system like Absolute Zero, how do you prevent the agent from converging on trivial or pathological behaviors, and what mechanisms ensure the curriculum continues to grow in difficulty rather than stagnate?”

Andrew Zhao: “It’s interesting that you point this out. So far, our initial method doesn’t include a mechanism to do that. The main reason is that, since we were proposing a new paradigm, we wanted to start with a clean, simple approach that still achieved strong results, and then leave room for the community to build on top of it. Our solution was not meant to address every issue, but rather to serve as a starting point for future research.

That said, your proposal is a promising research direction for closed-loop, self-improving systems. Ultimately, we want these agents to serve humans, so we should constrain learning to task subspaces that are valuable to humans and cover those subspaces as broadly as possible. One possible approach would be to regularize the task proposer using rewards that explicitly incentivize value and coverage.”

/our question: “Do you expect this GRPO-DPO equivalence to accelerate adoption of DPO-style methods, or do you see newer preference-learning approaches emerging that could supersede both?“

Yihong Wu: “We view the equivalence of GRPO and DPO as stemming from the current binary RLVR setting. However, we expect that more powerful algorithms will likely emerge by utilizing fine-grained signals, such as ranking or continuous rewards, rather than just binary feedback.”

/our question: “Given how sensitive ICL is to exemplar distributions, do you see a real future for “prompt engineering,” or do we need to move toward techniques like memory editing or more structured context representations?”

Adrian de Wynter: “I think that prompt engineering as it stands nowadays is slowly becoming less of a fundamental skill, especially when moving towards multiple model calls (e.g., agentic workflows) and stronger models (like RLMs) that, indeed, structure their own output/future context.
Things like edge cases can always be written down and the choice of words is significantly less relevant for output quality.

Indeed, research-wise, a lot of models have ‘handbooks’ with their preferred prompting structures. Typically it is something like JSON/Markdown with HTML sprinkled in. Nonetheless, most research works as of late tend to showcase a few prompts plus APO plus various LLMs as part of their results. Otherwise their claims will be (a) outdated tomorrow, and (b) relative to some phrasing without strong guarantees of generalisability.

This is supported by some of the results of the paper: automated prompt optimisation (APO) is effective at generating good results from the observed data (so you get good results as you prompt engineer your way through things); but it is brittle and cannot generalise (so your prompt is too specialised and likely online will not correspond fully to what you observed offline, like edge cases).

Aside, I would also argue – more controversially – that prompt engineering was never a thing per se. Writing things down and then correcting based on observations is a fundamental aspect of human communication.
Prompt engineering is basically trying multiple phrasings until something works, and the number of potential rephrasings for a given task is massive! A few years back we proved (formally) in another paper that – in general – the description of the task as output by the model suffices to get a good result.
So, ultimately, a model trained in paraphrases and variations of the same task will be able to extrapolate reasonably well what you want. Since most models in production are chat-based, this also means that there can be an intrinsic feedback loop, very much like that of an RLM or agentic workflows with a critic model.”

/our question: “What belief about AI progress did you personally change while working on this paper?”

Adrian de Wynter: “Personally, I was extremely sceptical on the capabilities of LLMs, or the autoregressive model in general. Not because of the models themselves, but because of the research. In fact, that’s precisely why I started that work: I wanted to provide strong empirical evidence at a large scale on whether these models were ‘reasoning’ over the context. After all, knowing is not the same as learning: an LLM could be trained on the whole internet, would that be sufficient to claim all-purpose generalisability?

While there were and are many works doing that (and claiming positive and negative results), they all have understandable shortcomings. These could range from no empirical work, to no robustness analysis to a few exemplars and not enough prompts being tested. All of this means very disparate results: for example, the number of papers saying that LLMs cannot solve PARITY is almost the same as those where LLMs pretty much solve it!

The paper’s results certainly changed my view, to an extent. In LLM research, there are very few absolutes. I was hoping that a massive empirical test would provide conclusive evidence of learning and generalisation capabilities, and instead what I found was that in-context learning (ICL) does constitute a form of learning. This is, however, extremely nuanced: it is a form of learning insofar as the strict mathematical definition is concerned, but it is very weak due to various brittleness conditions.

I am not going to say I’m on the side of people claiming that AI will be like the robots from I, Robot, but ICL does present properties that are way beyond what we used to work with in NLP.
That said, there are known limits to what an autoregressive model can do, such as inability to truly understand what you are saying or react to the pragmatic context. The brittleness I’ve discussed is another. Theoretical problem complexity also matters. Nonetheless, I’d argue that what we observe now is somewhere between ELIZA and sci-fi, and that makes it all the more exciting – and concerning.

(to clarify, concerned about their adoption without proper understanding of their limitations and capabilities.)”

/our question: “If models naturally drift toward a shared “hivemind,” which interventions do you think have the best chance of restoring genuine diversity – training data diversity, evaluation changes, or algorithmic randomness – without sacrificing reliability?”

Liwei Jiang: “Tackling this challenge requires fundamental innovations across the entire modeling pipeline, spanning data, training methodologies, model interfaces, system interaction paradigms, and evaluation. In particular, we need new training paradigms that explicitly account for the Pareto frontier between quality and diversity from the root, alongside evaluation benchmarks that explicitly and rigorously quantify diversity and creativity in open-ended generation to properly incentivize progress along these dimensions.”

/our question: “If tiny per-step accuracy gains compound exponentially, where should research effort concentrate next: better planning algorithms, explicit error-correction mechanisms, or systematically scaling small optimizations everywhere?

Akshit Sinha: “I am currently really excited about research that is in the broad area of memory/context management. We did a small experiment in the appendix which showed promising results for context management, and recent works have come out corroborating this: including MEM1, Solving a million step task, and recursive LMs. 

Handing LLMs the reins to their own context can very likely lead to large improvements for free, and can also lead to emergent self-correction, although that seems unlikely. in short: short term goals for me are context management, and long term goals would be some self-verification loop architecture for self correction and self improvement.”

/our question: “Which current architecture or hardware choice will look embarrassingly inefficient once IPW becomes standard?

Jon Saad-Falcon: “The most glaring inefficiency is the "route everything to frontier models" paradigm. Our data shows 77% of ChatGPT requests are single-turn chat and reasoning queries that don't require trillion-parameter models running on 700W enterprise GPUs. On the hardware side, our finding that local accelerators achieve 1.5x lower IPW than enterprise GPUs on identical models suggests significant architectural headroom; expect local silicon optimized for inference efficiency rather than peak throughput to close this gap.”

/our question: What belief about AI progress did you personally change while working on this paper?
Jon Saad-Falcon: “We underestimated how close we already are to viable local inference. Going in, we expected the accuracy gap between local and frontier models to be the main barrier, but local LMs now match or exceed cloud routing on 3 of 4 benchmarks we tested. The real surprise was the 5.3x improvement in intelligence per watt over just two years, with most gains (3.1x) coming from model improvements rather than hardware. It reframed our view: the path to ubiquitous AI isn't just about building bigger models and larger datacenters; it's about making intelligence efficient enough to run everywhere.”

/our question: “Does TRM’s success suggest there’s effectively no lower bound on model size for strong reasoning, or do you expect sharp diminishing returns as we keep shrinking networks further?”

Alexia Jolicoeur‑Martineau: “There is a lower-bound, but its not clear that we have reached it. I assume that we can go lower with different setups (architecture, problem, algorithm, etc.). There's always a balance to reach to prevent overfitting and underfitting. For TRM, its controlled by model size and number of recursion. For LLMs, the very specific architecture choice is preventing overfitting and then its scaled as big as possible.”

/our question: “What belief about AI progress did you personally change while working on this paper?”
Alexia Jolicoeur‑Martineau: “I thought that bigger is better with model size. But it turns out that you can prevent overfitting on small data through clever balance between recursion and model size. This is wild because regular deep learning fails to generalize normally on small datasets, but this actually allows it to work (ex: 1000 training maze, 850/1000 test maze are solved; normally AI would just memorize the solutions).”