Research

Questions, methods, results, limitations, and public artifacts.

My current public work centers on generative models, latent world models, planning, and compute allocation. I treat evaluation design as part of the research contribution: a useful result should remain understandable when the headline hypothesis fails.

Few-Step Field Regularity

Question. Probability paths change the velocity field learned by flow matching. At a fixed number of function evaluations (NFE), does lower averaged Jacobian regularity reliably imply lower numerical sampling error?

Method. The project uses commuting Gaussian probability-flow ODEs, where the dynamics and Gaussian \(W_2\) endpoint error are available exactly. It pairs a closed-form scalar construction with a frozen 36-comparison comparison of linear and trigonometric variance-preserving paths under equal-NFE Euler, Heun, and RK4 solvers; selected settings also compare four candidate paths.

Main result. For the transport \(\mathcal{N}(0,1)\rightarrow\mathcal{N}(0,4)\), averaged regularity prefers a trigonometric variance-preserving path, while Heun at NFE 8 gives lower \(W_2\) error to the linear path. The frozen grid has 12 geometry–solver cells, each evaluated at NFE 8, 16, and 32. Five cells contain ranking inversions, spanning 14 of the 36 paired path comparisons. This is evidence that averaged regularity is not, by itself, a reliable ordering surrogate under finite discretization.

Limits. The closed-form claims concern exact Gaussian systems, not learned neural velocity fields. The 14-of-36 count describes one finite registered grid, not a population failure rate or a general theorem about flow matching.

Status. Public research manuscript and reproducible software. No venue acceptance or public archival publication is claimed here.

Ego-World JEPA

Question. Does factorizing an action-conditioned latent world model into object-relevant components improve planning with a shared detector and MPPI controller on PushT?

Method. Eight configurations vary latent factorization, auxiliary supervision, and related modeling choices. The main factored and monolithic pair was evaluated with 50 planning episodes per seed, 512 MPPI samples, six optimization iterations, and an eight-step horizon. Both use the same detector and controller.

Main result. On the 96 px g1/g2 checkpoints at seed 0, an in-slice ridge probe of absolute block pose reached \(R^2=0.997\) for the factored model and \(R^2=0.992\) for the monolithic model, with 6/50 and 2/50 planning successes. A displacement probe on the same checkpoints reached \(R^2=0.205\) and \(R^2=0.240\), reversing the probe ordering. On seed 1, both reached 2/50 planning successes. The seed-0 planning difference was not significant under the reported Fisher test (\(p=0.269\)), and the apparent factorization advantage did not replicate. High probe decodability was therefore insufficient evidence of a planning-useful representation in this setup.

Earlier 64 px checkpoints reached absolute-pose probe \(R^2=0.286\) for the factored model and \(R^2=0.779\) for the monolithic model. The configurations differed from g1/g2, including auxiliary supervision.

Limits. The primary comparison has two seeds, the probe is in-slice and partly aligned with auxiliary supervision, and success rates remain low across the grid. The experiment covers one PushT setup and does not establish a broad claim about JEPA representations or model-predictive control.

Status. Completed and frozen controlled project; the central outcome is a negative result.

Secondary projects

Learned niche selection for sycophancy probing

An adaptation of ACES to a grounded 12-cell sycophancy-probing domain. Over two seeds and 100 generations, plain Bayesian factored-ALP selection trailed uniform sampling in mean QD-score (9.219 versus 10.750). An \(\varepsilon=0.2\) exploration floor recovered mean coverage to 0.917 and mean QD-score to 11.000, although one seed retained substantial cell concentration. With only two seeds, this is a diagnostic case study, not an inferential or publication claim.

Repository and report

Proximal Diffusion Models in PyTorch

A from-scratch course reproduction of the proximal diffusion framework on MNIST and small two-dimensional distributions, including score-based and proximal samplers, tests, configuration, and an FID-versus-NFE evaluation pipeline. This is an implementation of published work, not an original paper.

Repository

Decision Transformer for limit-order-book trading

A reproducible offline-RL benchmark co-developed with Côme Genet on FI-2010. Across five seeds, the Decision Transformer improved over behavior cloning but did not beat buy-and-hold under the primary transaction-cost setting.

The reported units are normalized feature-space PnL, and the execution model ignores spread, latency, queue position, and market impact.

Repository