Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Introducing Contrastive Language Model (CLM): an ultra-fast System One Model trained with a contrastive learning objective that connects states and actions. CLM-8B is pre-trained on internet-scale data and delivers up to 9× faster inference than Jev ⚡ while achieving comparable performance across computer-use, gaming, and tool-calling tasks. With lightweight...

1,068,884 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

47 Comments

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

🧵(1) Model Architecture CLM first trains a state encoder and an action encoder on a large-scale dataset with a contrastive objective, so that each state is pulled toward the ground-truth action and pushed away from all others. The two encoders then serve directly as a zero-shot action classifier.

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

🧵(2) Data Recipe We release CLM-8B, which is pre-trained on 60M Nemotron Q&A pairs, mid-trained on 30M synthetic hard negatives, and post-trained on 1M agentic trajectories.

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

🧵(3) Scaling Laws for Verification We find that the test InfoNCE loss scales as a power law with training compute, dataset size, projection-head size, and encoder size. These dimensions must be scaled jointly to achieve optimal performance. Notably, scaling the encoder size yields the strongest gains.

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

🧵(4) Latency vs. Jev and Constrained Decoding The key difference between CLM and Jev is that Jev only supports state caching, whereas CLM’s dual-encoder architecture allows state and action embeddings to be cached independently. This is particularly useful in applications such as tool calling, computer use, and games, where the action space is predefined and remains fixed. By caching the action embeddings, CLM substantially reduces inference cost, with the efficiency gains becoming even larger as the number and length of candidate actions grow. At ~1K candidates, CLM is 13× faster than Jev ⚡

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

🧵(5) Zero-Shot Evaluation Across computer-use, gaming, and tool-calling tasks, CLM-8B performs on par with Jev while running up to 9× faster. The speedups are most pronounced when the number of candidates is large (e.g., WikiRacing) or when actions can be reused frequently across states (e.g., T-Rex Game). CLM-35B, with improved generalization and even greater speedups, will be released early next month.

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

🧵(6) Agentic Benchmarks We find that Jev fails to serve as a verifier for long-horizon tasks, performing below the random-selection (Pass@1) baseline. In contrast, with lightweight fine-tuning, CLM achieves SOTA performance on challenging agentic benchmarks, including DeepSWE (81.6%) and Terminal-Bench 2.1 (87.6%), while delivering 4–6× faster inference than Jev.

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

🧵(7) Dino Run Demo

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

🧵(8) Super Mario Demo

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

🧵(9) WikiRacing Demo

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

CLM comes with an interactive playground on GitHub:

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

CLM-8B is part of our scaling ladder, where we train models across multiple scales to establish scaling laws and predict performance at larger scales. A multimodal CLM-35B is now in training with more data, compute, and parameters. Stay tuned for the release early next month 🚀

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

Joint work with @hangoo_kang @TarunSures41845 @JonSaadFalcon @drmapavone @Azaliamirh and @HazyResearch

John Rood's profile picture
John Rood1 month ago

the disaggregation is the part builders should steal: a loop scores the same state against many candidate actions, so the state embedding caches perfectly and each candidate collapses to a cheap dot product. that's the economics that makes per-turn decisions affordable.

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

Exactly!

Dibs's profile picture
Dibs1 month ago

Very nice, but didn't Jev just come out? Could you explain how you guys did this work so quickly?

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

I actually explored this for robotics last year, and CLM grew directly out of that work a few months ago. Feel free to check out my earlier post for more details on how CLM could be applied to robotics:

Xuan (Billy) Zhang's profile picture
Xuan (Billy) Zhang1 month ago

Contrastive learning is back again!

Brandon's profile picture
Brandon1 month ago

More bookmarks than likes. That's how you know someone cooked here

Cuth's profile picture
Cuth1 month ago

adding to the benchmark

Raymond Weitekamp's profile picture
Raymond Weitekamp1 month ago

impressive stuff!

Alfc Oleol's profile picture
Alfc Oleol1 month ago

Vision support?

Jacky Kwok's profile picture
Jacky Kwok1 month ago

We’ll be releasing CLM-35B next month with vision support. Stay tuned for the release 👀

Suraj's profile picture
Suraj1 month ago

caching state and action embeddings separately is the clever bit. huge for tool routing

Omar Ramadan's profile picture
Omar Ramadan1 month ago

Finally, this is what I call real research

Florian S's profile picture
Florian S1 month ago

Do you want me to include it in JevBench?

Durp's profile picture
Durp1 month ago

Wait, so this just crushes Jev, and is free, and runs locally with 8 billion parameters? It fits in under 8gb? What's the context window size? What's the catch?! Don't toy with me here, this sounds so good..

Douglas Schonholtz's profile picture
Douglas Schonholtz1 month ago

We gotta get it numbers on decision bench and jev bench

Stephane's profile picture
Stephane1 month ago

@grok explain exactly what this is, and how can I use it, for what. Compare with Jev from typesafeAi

Cuth's profile picture
Cuth1 month ago

This model is up next on the benchmark chopping block. I hope it pushes the frontier!

TheHBrand's profile picture
TheHBrand1 month ago

is this OSS on hugging face? how does this perform on language recognition applications like "what was the users intention - here's waht they said - here's your options" ?

Potato Terminator's profile picture
Potato Terminator1 month ago

9x faster inference with open weights and published scaling laws is real progress. I'm curious what the compute footprint per agent task looks like vs a dense autoregressive model. Efficiency gains like this matter more than another benchmark point.

YUKI's profile picture
YUKI1 month ago

Really cool work! We’re building JevEmbed to turn embeddings into decisions: Choice, Score, and Noul judgments from existing embedding models, without text generation. Curious how CLMs would perform as a backbone.

Gi's profile picture
Gi1 month ago

how can a 8B model get these numbers?? DeepSWE (81.6%) and Terminal-Bench 2.1 (87.6%). and no body is surprised??

Brjan | AI Builder's profile picture
Brjan | AI Builder1 month ago

if it's really 9× faster, that could change the game for real-time applications

智0elsyn's profile picture
智0elsyn1 month ago

The independent action cache is the appealing part for me: a changing state doesn't force you to re-encode the same menu of actions. For tool routing, have you tried a two-stage version—cache tool selection, then generate the arguments? That seems a useful middle ground between four fixed game moves and entirely fresh action candidates.

Dominik's profile picture
Dominik1 month ago

the useful leap here is treating state and action as separate objects instead of collapsing everything into a single prompt. cached embeddings can preserve what the run learned while the action set stays auditable. that is where faster inference becomes a continuity primitive, not just a benchmark win.

Jared Zoneraich's profile picture
Jared Zoneraich1 month ago

10x faster... that's insane

lastinline's profile picture
lastinline1 month ago

The claim to check is variance under shift. Contrastive objectives are only as good as the negatives they were trained against.

Michel aka Agent B's profile picture
Michel aka Agent B1 month ago

Very interesting work Jacky ! Bravo to the team 👏👏 Just out of curiosity: Was the idea originally inspired by robotics?

James Odebiyi's profile picture
James Odebiyi1 month ago

seems really useful for game agents

Yogesh's profile picture
Yogesh1 month ago

@jackyk02 missing piece next to big coding models agent loops burn tokens on tiny which-action-next calls. a contrastive system-1 that maps state to action without paragraphs feels closer to a real controller curious if 9x holds in a multi-tool harness with long history

MattacK's profile picture
MattacK1 month ago

is this a Fair and Honest measure of latency if you can tell based on the details shared? i.e. testing latency of an API to a model sitting on hardware right next to you vs. going thru all the standard DNS pipes etc of the web to get a response from Jev's API X miles away (if it's this scenario, it would not be a fair comparison)

X4's profile picture
X41 month ago

InfoNCE indeed was essential, also multi-modality. Am working on a different project and approach and appreciate a lot your creative and beatiful results. Congratulations Jacky 😎🥂🍾🚀

Samuel Ekpe's profile picture
Samuel Ekpe1 month ago

@arankomatsuzaki This is sick!

hamjji's profile picture
hamjji1 month ago

Is CLM-8B open weights like Kev, or API only? Would love to see it on the same out-of-domain test Kev posted.

Martin Harold Williams's profile picture
Martin Harold Williams1 month ago

@grok please generate the comprehensive accurate prompt for my ai agent to set this up on my mac if possible if not will set it up on the cloud. Thank you

Thành Lê 🌩️'s profile picture
Thành Lê 🌩️1 month ago

this is so good

Related Videos

NVIDIA and Stanford just challenged Jev. (their new System 1 architecture runs up to 9x faster.) It is called a Contrastive Language Model, or CLM. Like Jev, CLM is not designed to generate text. It handles the small, repeated decisions inside AI systems, such as choosing a tool, ranking a patch, routing a request, or selecting the next action. But CLM reaches those decisions differently. Instead of generating an answer token by token, it treats decision-making as a retrieval problem. Here is how it works. 1) Encode the state CLM takes the current situation, such as an agent’s context or the state of a game, and converts it into a vector. It uses a frozen Qwen3-8B model with a small trainable state projection head. 2) Encode every possible action A separate action head converts each candidate into the same vector space. In the Mario example, the candidates are left, jump, and right run. CLM does not invent a fourth option. It only evaluates the actions supplied by the application. 3) Learn which states and actions belong together During training, the correct state-action pair is pulled closer while incorrect pairs are pushed apart. A batch of B examples produces a B × B similarity matrix. The matching pairs sit on the diagonal. Every other pairing becomes a negative example. This contrastive training uses InfoNCE, the same general mechanism behind systems such as CLIP and dense retrieval. 4) Turn similarity into a decision At inference, CLM measures the cosine similarity between the state and every candidate action. A softmax converts those scores into a probability distribution. The application can choose the winner, apply a confidence threshold, or escalate an uncertain result. The real speed advantage comes from separating states and actions. Actions can be embedded once and cached. If an agent repeatedly chooses between the same tools, CLM only needs to encode the changing state and compare it with stored action vectors. That replaces repeated generation with one embedding pass and a set of cheap dot products. The researchers report that CLM-8B matches Jev across computer-use, gaming, and tool-calling evaluations while reaching up to 9x lower latency. The improvement is largest when actions repeat or the candidate set grows. CLM still has limits. It cannot generate new actions, its probabilities are relative to the supplied candidates, and its strongest verifier results require task-specific fine-tuning. But its central idea is powerful. The entire research is open-source, including the code. Read more here: When software already knows the possible answers, an AI model should score them instead of generating more words. I also wrote a full breakdown on how system one models like Jev work. The article is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

164,817 views • 1 month ago

Introducing FLUX 3 Action. An open weights 7B World Action Model that achieves first place on the RoboLab benchmark. It outperforms the previous best open model by 6.1 percentage points while using 56% fewer parameters and running up to 3.95x faster.⁠⁠ FLUX 3 Action removes the usual trade-off between world action model performance and VLA speed: it still predicts video and actions together, but plans more than twice as far ahead and runs faster per second of robot motion than the strongest open VLA. Teams can fine-tune FLUX 3 Action on their own demonstrations to create policies for a particular robot and task. Together with NVIDIA, we also integrated FLUX 3 Action natively into Hugging Face's LeRobot, with fine-tuning recipes included and edge deployment on NVIDIA Jetson. Beyond robotics, we’re also seeing promising results training task-specific policies for acting in simulated environments like gaming, controlling a vehicle, computer use, and wherever else a model needs to understand a visual environment and then choose what to do next. FLUX 3 Action builds on the same image, video, and audio pretraining as FLUX 3, but uses a smaller architecture designed for practical deployment. In midtraining, we trained the model to predict actions and future frames together. We’re releasing the weights, code, fine-tuning recipe, benchmarks, and reproducible examples so researchers and developers can build on the model with their own robots, environments, and tasks (see below).

Black Forest Labs

182,671 views • 1 month ago

Today, we're joined by Aakanksha Chowdhery, member of technical staff at Reflection, to explore the fundamental shifts required to build true agentic AI. While the industry has largely focused on post-training techniques to improve reasoning, Aakanksha draws on her experience leading pre-training efforts for Google’s PaLM and early Gemini models to argue that pre-training itself must be rethought to move beyond static benchmarks. We explore the limitations of next-token prediction for multi-step workflows and examine how attention mechanisms, loss objectives, and training data must evolve to support long-form reasoning and planning. Aakanksha shares insights on the difference between context retrieval and actual reasoning, the importance of "trajectory" training data, and why scaling remains essential for discovering emergent agentic capabilities like error recovery and dynamic tool learning. 🗒️ For the full list of resources for this episode, visit the show notes page: 📖 CHAPTERS =============================== 00:00 - Introduction 02:26 - Reflection 04:54 - Limitations of post-training for building agents 07:31 - Rethinking pre-training in agents 10:51 - Scaling 11:27 - Evolving attention mechanisms for agentic capabilities 12:39 - Memory as a tool 14:13 - Loss objectives and training data 15:50 - Fine-tuning loss in agent performance 19:37 - Training data 21:29 - Augmenting dominant training data source 24:11 - Overcoming challenges in training on synthetic data 25:47 - Benchmarks 30:44 - Scaling laws in large models versus small models 33:20 - Long-form versus short-form reasoning 37:57 - Agent’s ability to recover from failure 40:15 - Hallucinations and failure recovery 43:53 - Tool use in agents 46:38 - Coding agents 48:37 - How researchers can contribute to agentic AI

The TWIML AI Podcast

48,352 views • 10 months ago

New Course: Post-training of LLMs Learn to post-train and customize an LLM in this short course, taught by Banghua Zhu, Assistant Professor at the University of Washington University of Washington, and co-founder of @NexusflowX. Training an LLM to follow instructions or answer questions has two key stages: pre-training and post-training. In pre-training, it learns to predict the next word or token from large amounts of unlabeled text. In post-training, it learns useful behaviors such as following instructions, tool use, and reasoning. Post-training transforms a general-purpose token predictor—trained on trillions of unlabeled text tokens—into an assistant that follows instructions and performs specific tasks. Because it is much cheaper than pre-training, it is practical for many more teams to incorporate post-training methods into their workflows than pre-training. In this course, you’ll learn three common post-training methods—Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and Online Reinforcement Learning (RL)—and how to use each one effectively. With SFT, you train the model on pairs of input and ideal output responses. With DPO, you provide both a preferred (chosen) and a less preferred (rejected) response and train the model to favor the preferred output. With RL, the model generates an output, receives a reward score based on human or automated feedback, and updates the model to improve performance. You’ll learn the basic concepts, common use cases, and principles for curating high-quality data for effective training. Through hands-on labs, you’ll download a pre-trained model from Hugging Face and post-train it using SFT, DPO, and RL to see how each technique shapes model behavior. In detail, you’ll: - Understand what post-training is, when to use it, and how it differs from pre-training. - Build an SFT pipeline to turn a base model into an instruct model. - Explore how DPO reshapes behavior by minimizing contrastive loss—penalizing poor responses and reinforcing preferred ones. - Implement a DPO pipeline to change the identity of a chat assistant. - Learn online RL methods such as Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), and how to design reward functions. - Train a model with GRPO to improve its math capabilities using a verifiable reward. Post-training is one of the most rapidly developing areas of LLM training. Whether you’re building a high-accuracy context-specific assistant, fine-tuning a model's tone, or improving task-specific accuracy, this course will give you experience with the most important techniques shaping how LLMs are post-trained today. Please sign up here:

Andrew Ng

128,519 views • 1 year ago