REVIEW 3 cited by
Multi-LLM Collaborative Search for Complex Problem Solving
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
Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with complex reasoning tasks due to their limitations in addressing the vast reasoning space and inherent ambiguities of natural language. We propose the Mixture-of-Search-Agents (MoSA) paradigm, a novel approach leveraging the collective expertise of multiple LLMs to enhance search-based reasoning. MoSA integrates diverse reasoning pathways by combining independent exploration with iterative refinement among LLMs, mitigating the limitations of single-model approaches. Using Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) as a backbone, MoSA enables multiple agents to propose and aggregate reasoning steps, resulting in improved accuracy. Our comprehensive evaluation across four reasoning benchmarks demonstrates MoSA's consistent performance improvements over single-agent and other multi-agent baselines, particularly in complex mathematical and commonsense reasoning tasks.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Collaborative Memory: Multi-User Memory Sharing in LLM Agents with Dynamic Access Control
A two-tier private/shared memory system with provenance-based access control reduces redundant queries in multi-user LLM agent teams by up to 61 percent without losing accuracy.
-
How to Train a Leader: Hierarchical Reasoning in Multi-Agent LLMs
A leader LLM trained with a GRPO variant that conditions on frozen agent responses improves both collaborative and zero-shot accuracy on BBH, MATH, and MMLU.
-
Ctrl-Z Sampling: Scaling Diffusion Sampling with Controlled Random Zigzag Explorations
Ctrl-Z Sampling improves text-to-image outputs by adaptively rolling back and re-exploring when a reward model flags a quality plateau, at roughly 3 to 9 times the usual compute.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.