Open research repository
AEX CONTINUUM keeps every stage of your research open and citable: preprints, conference proceedings, books, data and code, and open peer-reviewed articles. Free to read. Free to deposit.
The collections
Each collection serves a stage of the research lifecycle. Everything shares the same identifiers, licences and search, so work stays connected as it moves from one stage to the next.
Share your work the day it is ready.
Rapid, free dissemination of research before or alongside peer review. Preprints are screened for scope and compliance, posted with a DOI, and can be versioned as the work develops.
Screened, not peer reviewedBrowse
Permanent, citable homes for conference papers.
Open-access proceedings for conferences, workshops and symposia. Organisers deposit their accepted papers; every paper and every volume receives a DOI.
Reviewed by the event organisersBrowse
Monographs, textbooks and theses, free to read.
Long-form scholarship published open access: monographs, textbooks, handbooks, lecture notes and doctoral theses, each with an ISBN and chapter-level access.
Checked for completeness and licensingBrowse
The long-term home for everything behind the paper.
Preserve datasets, software, models, technical reports, posters and supplementary material with persistent identifiers, version history and clear licensing.
Preserved with checksums and version historyBrowse
Open peer review, then a validated version of record.
Request peer review for your work. Independent reviewers assess it openly, their reports are published with the article, and the outcome follows their assessment of soundness.
9 articlesBrowse
We audit 2,400 checklist responses submitted over three years and compare them against the papers they accompany. Checks for compute reporting and variance were answered affirmatively in 78% of cases but supported by the paper in only 41%, suggesting that checklists work best when responses must point to a location in the text.
Speculative decoding accelerates generation by letting a small draft model propose tokens that a larger model verifies, but the draft model competes with the target model for scarce memory on edge devices. We characterise the trade-off between draft-model size, speed-up and memory footprint, and propose a draft that shares the target model's embedding table and lower layers. The shared draft reduces extra memory from 11% to 3% of the target model and retains 88% of the speed-up of an independent draft.
Preference-based fine-tuning is expensive to study because reward models are large. We show that a reward model distilled to 1% of the size of the original recovers 94% of its ranking accuracy on held-out preference pairs, and that policies trained against the small model transfer to the large one with a modest loss. The result lowers the cost of reward-modelling experiments for groups with limited compute.
Sofia Lindqvist, Julia Fernandes
A monograph on the governance of software that acts on its own. The authors set out practical requirements for identity, bounded authority and reconstructable logs, compare them with existing liability and data-protection regimes, and offer implementation guidance for deployers.
2,400 anonymised checklist responses with an independent assessment of whether each claim is supported by the accompanying paper. Basis of the OPENAIR 2026 audit.
Oluwaseun Adebayo, Elias Wagner, Ravi Menon
Users frequently mix languages within a single query, but retrieval benchmarks rarely reflect this. We construct code-mixed query sets for two language pairs and evaluate dense retrievers under different tokenisation and fine-tuning strategies. Adapting the query encoder with synthetic code-mixed data improves recall@20 by 9 points over a multilingual baseline, while transliteration normalisation helps for romanised queries but hurts for native-script queries.
CONTINUUM Publishing
Ask for peer review whenever you are ready. Independent reviewers assess whether your work is sound, their reports are published with the article, and the outcome follows what they say — not an editor's taste. Your preprint becomes a validated, citable version of record.
01
Day 0
Choose Publishing when you submit, or request review for a preprint or archive record you have already posted.
02
Within 3 days
A short administrative check for scope, authorship, licence and files. No judgement on novelty or impact.
03
Target 28 days
At least three independent reviewers are invited. Each one publishes a report with one of three outcomes.
04
At your pace
Answer every report publicly and post a new version. Reviewers can update their assessment.
05
On approval
The article is labelled Peer reviewed once reviewers approve it. No editor decides; the reports do.
