REVIEW 7 cited by
A Comparative Study on Reasoning Patterns of OpenAI's o1 Model
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Enabling Large Language Models (LLMs) to handle a wider range of complex tasks (e.g., coding, math) has drawn great attention from many researchers. As LLMs continue to evolve, merely increasing the number of model parameters yields diminishing performance improvements and heavy computational costs. Recently, OpenAI's o1 model has shown that inference strategies (i.e., Test-time Compute methods) can also significantly enhance the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. However, the mechanisms behind these methods are still unexplored. In our work, to investigate the reasoning patterns of o1, we compare o1 with existing Test-time Compute methods (BoN, Step-wise BoN, Agent Workflow, and Self-Refine) by using OpenAI's GPT-4o as a backbone on general reasoning benchmarks in three domains (i.e., math, coding, commonsense reasoning). Specifically, first, our experiments show that the o1 model has achieved the best performance on most datasets. Second, as for the methods of searching diverse responses (e.g., BoN), we find the reward models' capability and the search space both limit the upper boundary of these methods. Third, as for the methods that break the problem into many sub-problems, the Agent Workflow has achieved better performance than Step-wise BoN due to the domain-specific system prompt for planning better reasoning processes. Fourth, it is worth mentioning that we have summarized six reasoning patterns of o1, and provided a detailed analysis on several reasoning benchmarks.
Forward citations
Cited by 7 Pith papers
-
Stepwise Reasoning Checkpoint Analysis: A Test Time Scaling Method to Enhance LLMs' Reasoning
A checkpoint-based search and candidate augmentation method improves small LLM mathematical reasoning accuracy over existing test-time scaling baselines.
-
Scaling Test-time Compute for LLM Agents
On the GAIA benchmark, Best-of-N sampling with list-wise answer selection gives the largest agent gains, and selective (score-triggered) reflection beats reflection at every step.
-
WebDancer: Towards Autonomous Information Seeking Agency
A four-stage data-and-training pipeline (synthetic QA, trajectory rejection sampling, SFT, DAPO reinforcement learning) produces WebDancer, a web agent that outperforms vanilla ReAct and several open-source agentic fr...
-
First Return, Entropy-Eliciting Explore
FR3E improves LLM math reasoning by finding high-entropy tokens in a trajectory and doing extra rollouts from those points to shape rewards.
-
CoRT: Code-integrated Reasoning within Thinking
Inserting targeted hints into a few training examples teaches reasoning models to compute with Python instead of text, improving accuracy and cutting token use by 30 to 50 percent.
-
QwenLong-L1: Towards Long-Context Large Reasoning Models with Reinforcement Learning
QwenLong-L1-32B, trained with warm-up SFT plus curriculum-based long-context RL, reaches 70.7 average accuracy on seven DocQA benchmarks, though the evaluation gives it longer context than its proprietary baselines.
-
ThinkLess: A Training-Free Inference-Efficient Method for Reducing Reasoning Redundancy
Skipping explicit chain-of-thought reasoning entirely, and prompting for a formatted answer, matches full CoT accuracy on several benchmarks while cutting latency and token counts.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.