Read six July 2026 ABMN working papers covering the model-family contract, NER, classification, reranking, lexical retrieval, and one generalisation test.
The ABMN papers explain one approach to building compact, repeatable AI systems. Start with the family paper, then follow the task that interests you. These are July 2026 working drafts, not claims of peer-reviewed publication. They exist to show that full determinism is achievable and holds across different kinds of task, not to chase top scores. The repositories publish with the papers.
Six ABMN working papers set out the family contract, task-specific memory structures, measured results, and stated limitations. The register separates draft evidence from any claim of external acceptance. The purpose is to demonstrate that full determinism is achievable and generalises across task types, rather than to claim state-of-the-art results. The repositories publish with the papers.
The six July 2026 drafts describe the ABMN family contract, four task-owned instantiations and one generalisation test that applies the same build contract to a logical learner. Each record carries the abstract, the section outline, the measurements and the stated limitations. The set exists to prove that full determinism is achievable and generalises across task types, without disclosing the proprietary work behind it. The repositories publish with the papers.
Each card gives you the question, the subject, and a summary of the paper. The titles stay exactly as they appear in the source papers. There are six of them, all dated July 2026. The complete draft is with external reviewers, so ask for it through the contact form and we release it once we approve the request.
Use this shelf as the review register. It contains the complete current ABMN working set and does not mix in product brochures or unsupported sector papers. Six titles carry one draft date and two named authors, so a review can start from the register rather than from a search. The drafts themselves are released on request.
The family paper defines the shared contract. Four companion papers instantiate it for NER, classification, reranking, and lexical retrieval, and a sixth asks whether the same build contract holds for a structurally different learner. All six carry the same draft date. The summary stays public; the draft is released on request.
One family paper, four task papers, one generalisation test
All six source documents carry this date
You do not need to read all six. The family paper provides the map, the task papers show how the same pattern changes for names, labels and search, and the last one asks whether the pattern survives a different kind of learner. The order below runs from the contract to the tasks and then to retrieval, but it is a suggestion rather than a ranking, and any single paper stands on its own. If you only read one, read the family paper, because the rest assume the shape it describes.
Review the family contract before comparing task results. It prevents a benchmark from being mistaken for a system-wide guarantee. The sequence runs from the family contract to the task papers, then to the two retrieval papers, and last to the generalisation test. It is editorial guidance rather than a maturity ranking, and any of the six can be read on its own once the contract is understood.
Read the family definition first, then compare how each task owns its memory, its build boundary and its evidence ledger. The sequence runs contract, task papers, retrieval papers, generalisation test. It orders the reading, not the maturity, and each paper states the scope its own measurements cover. The family paper is the only one the others depend on, so it is the one to read first if you read only one.
Definitions, build phases, and four memory organisations
Bridge reranking and corpus-adaptive indexing
The sequence is editorial guidance, not a maturity ranking.
See how the six papers fit together before choosing a task.
Follow a compact system that finds names and places with exact structured decoding.
See how a text classifier can become a reproducible binary build.
Inspect search reranking without a dense model in the query path.
Inspect lexical retrieval with deterministic scoring.
Establish the shared model-family contract and its evidence boundaries.
Review reported quality, footprint, throughput, and the NER limitations together.
Review the cross-architecture artifact and prediction identity claim.
Review the measured bridge-memory reranking path on SciFact and NF-Corpus.
Review the corpus-adaptive serving path and its MS MARCO measurements.
Define learn, strip, execute, and the four task-owned memory organisations.
Trace sequence labelling from one build to exact decoding.
Trace text classification to byte-identical artifacts across ARM and x86.
Trace typed sparse atoms into compiled bridge tables and integer reranking.
Trace lexical retrieval from the corpus build to deterministic top-k results.
The papers share a basic move: learning prepares compact task memory, build-only state is removed, and a fixed procedure uses the result. Four subjects cover the family paper and the task papers, and each of those belongs to exactly one subject. The generalisation test sits beside them, asking whether the same move works on a different kind of learner.
The shared contract is the comparison point. Task-specific quality and systems numbers remain local to the paper and evaluation that reports them. Four subjects cover the family contract and the task papers, and each of them sits under exactly one subject. The generalisation test is reported separately, because it tests the contract rather than a task.
The family contract stays stable while addressing, update rules and decoding differ by task. The subject map keeps those instantiations separate, with four subjects and exactly one subject per task paper. The generalisation test carries the contract to a structurally different learner and reports its evidence per host.
Named entity recognition with exact structured decoding
One compiled artifact, identical on every architecture
You can read what each paper claims and how it was tested, and ask for the draft behind it. Neither of those means a journal, conference, or independent reviewer has accepted the work.
Treat the drafts as review inputs. External acceptance, independent replication, and production assurance require their own evidence and are not asserted here.
Methods and measurements are presented in the source drafts. Their scope, environment, baselines, and limitations travel with each claim.
All six entries are working papers dated July 2026.
The date describes the draft snapshot, not a publication event.
Every entry has a full draft, and Dweve releases it on request.
The drafts are with external reviewers, so nothing is published here. Ask through the contact form and we release the paper on approval.
Reported results belong to the task, dataset, configuration, and environment named in the paper.
A result in one paper is not promoted to a family-wide guarantee.
The repository does not establish a journal, conference, or peer-review outcome for these drafts.
The library therefore uses working-paper language throughout.
Publication or peer-review status will only be stated when the repository supports it.
This register shows where each title comes from and how to get the paper itself. There are no extra papers hidden behind marketing names. Every entry names one source directory, and the draft that directory holds is the one we send when you ask for it.
Use the register to verify that the library entry, the detail route, and the draft we release all refer to the same working paper. Each title names one authoritative source directory, so a claim on this page can be traced to the document that supports it.
The register binds each canonical slug to its authoritative source directory. Detail pages carry the abstract, section outline, and stated status; the complete draft stays with external reviewers and is released on request. No entry appears here without a source directory behind it, which is what makes the register checkable rather than asserted.
One draft per source, released on request
Every listed paper names its authoritative source directory, and its draft is released on request.
The summaries help you choose. The complete draft carries the methods, results, limitations, and references, and we release it when you ask for it.
Move from the family contract to the task paper, then take the stated evidence boundary into due diligence.
The library keeps the family definition, the task instantiations, the generalisation test, and their source paths in one reviewable sequence.
The six titles and dates come from the authoritative paper sources. The shelf does not rename old marketing material or create papers around product claims. What is listed here is the complete current working set, and nothing sits in it that the source directory does not carry.
Each detail route offers a concise orientation. The draft remains the complete record of methods, reported measurements, limitations, figures, and references, so a summary is a way in rather than a substitute for the paper.