AIarXiv

Ranked by formulaVerdict: Notable

Compute Has Shape: Self-Morphing the Internal Computation of Frozen LLMs

Test-time scaling improves large language models through additional computation, but how to adapt the topology of internal computation to individual inputs remains underexplored.

By Wu, Guo, Xia

Score████░░░░░░3.9

Key numbers

  • 8.06% mean relative improvement on
  • 4.45% on four unseen benchmarks

Caveats

  • Preprint; not yet peer reviewed.

VerdictWorth a reader's time today.

Read the originalPDFCode

Abstract

Test-time scaling improves large language models through additional computation, but how to adapt the topology of internal computation to individual inputs remains underexplored. Existing approaches largely fix recurrent or parallel architectures during training, or reconfigure frozen models along a single structural axis. We introduce SelfMorph, which makes computational shape an input-dependent inference-time decision. It unifies the original forward path (BASE), serial reuse of a layer span (REPEAT), and local branching and merging of perturbed hidden states (BRANCH) in a unified space parameterized by type, location, and intensity. Since they offer complementary benefits rather than uniform dominance, we use a lightweight selector that reads the backbone's depth-wise hidden state trajectory on the prompt to choose a morphology before response generation. We train the selector by distilling utility-based distribution from offline morphing that jointly account for task performance and computational cost. Evaluated on three LLMs spanning 4B-27B, SelfMorph achieves a 8.06% mean relative improvement on five in-distribution benchmarks and 4.45% on four unseen benchmarks. It achieves the strongest performance in 24 of 27 settings. These findings identify input-adaptive computational topology as a complementary axis of test-time scaling beyond generating more tokens. Our code is available at https://github.com/creator-xi/SelfMorph.

Junxi Wu, Yiwen Guo, Shu-Tao Xia

The editor's rubric

Heuristic review

Leverage4 / 5
A general-purpose tool used across several fields (Adam, ResNet, LoRA, next-generation sequencing).
24% of this desk’s rubric
Magnitude3 / 5
Large gain: roughly 2x, or a clear new state of the art on a hard, unsaturated problem.
18% of this desk’s rubric
Evidence3 / 5
Solid: multiple benchmarks or cohorts, ablations, fair baselines, released code or data.
14% of this desk’s rubric
Novelty3 / 5
A genuinely new approach to an open problem.
16% of this desk’s rubric
Trajectory3 / 5
A clear path to scale.
18% of this desk’s rubric
Stakes2 / 5
Benefits a professional community (practitioners, clinicians, engineers).
10% of this desk’s rubric

Editor’s rationale

Heuristic triage from title and abstract text only, not a reading of the paper. Cues found: method (we propose); breadth (many tasks); gains (relative gain); novelty (alternative to status quo); verification (multiple benchmarks, held-out test, code released); scale (scalable); stakes (general AI).

How the score was computed

rank-2026-10-18

Score████░░░░░░3.9

Score = 10 × (65% × adjusted merit / 10 + 25% × attention + 10% × freshness)

Desks place stronger verdicts first, then use this score to order work within the same verdict.

Merit
6.3 / 10
Weighted rubric, evidence-gated.
Adjusted merit
5.0 / 10
Shrunk toward the desk prior by editor confidence (46%).
Attention
0%
Citations, upvotes, points, mentions.
Freshness
60%
Half-life decay since publication.

No attention signals recorded yet.

The record

  • Reviewed by heuristic-v10 on Oct 30, 2026, 02:59 UTC. Paper type: method.
  • Categories: cs.AI
  • BRIEF, No.7 in the Artificial Intelligence edition of October 30, 2026.