Reimplementation backlog

PLLM tracks papers because they may improve a concrete protocol, compiler pass, numeric primitive, or state-management boundary. A tracked paper is not a PLLM implementation. A similar data flow is not a reproduction.

Release-critical work

1. Complete one protected Qwen composition. Close every semantic, numeric, protected, placement, state, and token-feedback gap using explicit component contracts. The compiler must continue to reject partial coverage.
2. Re-measure the current prepared runtime. Record current-revision Qwen prefill and decode runs with exact model, prompt length, output length, machine, topology, cold/warm state, protocol bytes, and failure behavior. Keep loopback, WAN, CPU, and accelerator claims separate.
3. Scale and review the experimental gated-MLP components. The dense-table baseline and compact mixed-modulus method now share one capability contract; scalar and independent four-lane schedules are separate selections. Extend beyond the four-lane bound, validate the resulting memory schedule, and obtain cryptographic review. Bounded Q7 bundles are not a complete-model security result.

Composition and search

Papers do not become isolated runtime stacks. Each reimplementation contributes one or more components to a stable capability family: model and cache transformations, linear or nonlinear protocols, protected representations, conversions, preparation schemes, kernels, placement policies, assurance checks, and benchmark objectives. Like-for-like implementations live together behind the same typed contract; paper IDs remain provenance, not architecture. This is an evolving taxonomy. A genuinely new semantic role, lifecycle, or type boundary can introduce a new capability family; a new paper alone cannot. Families may split into dedicated modules as their implementation libraries grow without changing their stable plan contracts.

The harness will explore combinations in stages. It first rejects incompatible numeric domains, party topologies, trust assumptions, state lifetimes, model coverage, and devices. It then uses exhaustive or grid search for small bounded spaces and reproducible seeded random search for larger conditional spaces. Adaptive search can follow when enough comparable evidence exists. Every candidate still compiles into an immutable plan and passes correctness, privacy, execution, and evidence gates before its performance enters a comparison.

Search is multi-objective. Correctness and privacy are hard constraints; latency, throughput, traffic, memory, preparation cost, quality, energy, and monetary cost remain separate measurements. PLLM records a Pareto frontier for one matched cohort rather than declaring one method universally best.

Paper-driven work

Required gates

Every reimplementation advances through the same visible gates:

source + version
  -> clean-room specification
  -> inspectable reference
  -> source-scope fidelity tests
  -> reusable native component
  -> typed compiler/runtime integration
  -> scoped security review
  -> matched benchmark
  -> documented promotion decision

Missing evidence stays missing. Functional tests do not establish privacy; operator benchmarks do not establish complete-model execution; loopback runs do not establish WAN performance; an adaptation does not become a reproduction without source-scope fidelity evidence.

See Papers for source-by-source summaries and links, the PLLM paper for the system contract, and SDK status for shipped implementation coverage.