Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards

Evidence in the last complete seven days

Source mentions

1

Previous seven days 0

Distinct sources

1

Previous 0

Comparable growth

Not comparable

Ranking appearances

0

Collection observations and undated records are separate from dated publication counts. Observed in 7d：0 · Undated records：0

Daily history · up to 90 days

Bars show dated source mentions. The latest UTC day may be incomplete. Zero mentions and missing collection coverage are different conditions.

Dotted markers indicate days with no record. They are not counted as zero mentions.

Source evidence

Sources in the evidence shown：HF Daily Papers 1 · arXiv 1

1. HF Daily Papers · Published Nov 2, 2026

   Dory1.0-4B: A Looped Normalized-GPT

   We introduce Dory1.0-4B, a 4-billion-parameter looped (latent-recurrent) language model with elastic depth: a single checkpoint serves different inference compute budgets. Dory1.0-4B is built on a normalized Transformer (nGPT) backbone with interleaved sliding-window and full-attention layers, organized into an input block, a shared recurrent block, and an o

2. arXiv · Published Oct 20, 2026

   Preserving Reasoning Diversity in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards via Adaptive Replay

   View source record →

Review priority 41 / 100

This score orders research candidates. It is not search volume, a forecast or verified commercial demand.

• Evidence

  8 / 30

  Distinct dated articles or first observations; repeat crawling adds nothing.

• Publisher diversity

  8 / 25

  Conservative owner grouping; syndicated copies count once.

• Comparable change

  0 / 20

  Comparable complete weeks only; no percentage from a zero baseline.

• Recent evidence

  15 / 15

  Latest publication or first observation, not repeated fetch time.

• Name specificity

  9.7 / 10

  Explicit entities and technical concepts outrank ambiguous acronyms.

Limitations and interpretation

• First observation is a collection milestone, not proof that a word or product is new to the world.
• Counts describe monitored public sources, not the whole web or search demand.
• First observed here is not the invention date of a name or idea.
• Candidates come from public titles, summaries and entity URLs, not verified full-text analysis.
• Owner grouping is conservative; undisclosed syndication may remain.
• Repeat ranking appearances are observations, not new articles or independent endorsements.
• An established concept or common product name retained as a baseline, not a newly invented term.
• Both weeks need adequate, comparable collection coverage.
• Sources behind this term changed or lack a comparable baseline.
• Recent evidence includes collection over three days after publication.
• The previous week is too small for a reliable percentage change.
• Current evidence comes from one publisher or owner.