Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 27 references

NGENT: Next-Generation AI Agents Must Integrate Multi-Domain Abilities to Achieve Artificial General Intelligence

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that next-generation AI agents should be generalists, with a single agent integrating text, vision, robotics, tool use, and emotional intelligence as the path to AGI.

desk verdict A position paper with a real but thin pilot; the IQ/EQ balance claim is plausible, not proven, and the missing controls are the gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21433 v1 pith:JMK7DYNG submitted 2025-04-30 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords artificialgeneralintelligenceAIagentsmulti-domainintegrationIQ-EQbalancepersonificationinstructionpre-trainingtoollearningfoundationmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This position paper argues that the next leap in AI agents must come from integration rather than specialization: a next-generation agent (NGENT) should combine capabilities that currently live in separate assistants, role-playing systems, coding agents, tool users, OS controllers, and robot controllers. The authors contend this is feasible because model architectures, learning algorithms, and agent components are all converging, and they see it as a necessary step toward artificial general intelligence. As a concrete near-term target, they propose a '1.5-generation agent' that balances IQ, the intelligent-assistant side, with EQ, a user-friendly persona, and they report pilot results from a three-stage training pipeline that moves a model in this direction. A reader should care because the paper is deliberately resetting the agenda: spend less effort on isolated domain agents and more on unified generalists.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the claim of technological convergence: Transformer-based architectures now underpin language models, multimodal models, offline reinforcement learning, and robot control; multi-task, transfer, self-supervised, and tool learning are maturing in parallel; and agent components for perception, reasoning, action, and learning are becoming modular and swappable. On the practical side, the paper's concrete machinery is a three-stage training pipeline for the 1.5-generation agent. Instruction Pre-Training (IPT) trains only on the dialogue portions of persona-rich texts so the model learns character traits; Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) adds a Personified Style Rewriter (PSR) to turn stiff replies into anthropomorphic ones, builds an IQ-preserving contrastive dataset of factual and persona answers, and iterates with an 'ask agent' that simulates users; Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) then tunes for accuracy, engagement, and conciseness. This pipeline is what carries the paper's claim that IQ and EQ can be balanced rather than traded off.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to train the proposed 1.5-generation agent and compare it against the NAIVE+SFT baseline across a broad IQ suite while EQ quality is held at a fixed high level: if scaling up persona data consistently pushes knowledge benchmarks such as MMLU and CMMLU below the baseline, then the lossless-balance claim fails. The paper's own Table 2 already shows a small drop on those two benchmarks, so the observation that would settle the point is whether the gap widens or disappears with more data and training.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a single AI agent can and should eventually handle text, vision, robotics, reinforcement learning, tool use, and emotional interaction without being trained as a specialist in any one of them. It identifies the hard part as the tension between IQ-oriented tasks, which reward abstract reasoning, efficiency, and factual accuracy, and EQ-oriented tasks, which reward empathy and engaging communication. To make that tension tractable, the paper introduces the 1.5-generation agent, a hybrid in which intelligent assistance takes priority in functional tasks such as coding and tool use while a deeply integrated persona handles human interaction, and it argues this hybrid is a feasible stepping stone to a full 2.0-generation NGENT. The supporting experiments train a model with instruction pre-training, supervised fine-tuning with a persona style rewriter, and direct preference optimization, and the reported numbers show improved personification scores on CharacterEval alongside mixed but mostly stable IQ scores across MMLU, CMMLU, GSM8K, IFEval, and AlignBench.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that every specialized capability of today's agents can be merged into a single model without a meaningful loss of performance in any domain, and it gives way if the IQ-EQ tension cannot be resolved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the NGENT vision is correct, a single agent could replace today's patchwork of separate assistant, role-playing, coding, tool-using, and device-control agents, simplifying multi-step workflows and user interaction.
  • Research effort would shift toward unified architectures and training pipelines, away from the fragmented development of first-generation specialists, which is exactly the reallocation the paper advocates.
  • The IQ-EQ balance would become a concrete milestone: a measurable 1.5-generation agent that is simultaneously competent and personable, followed by a full 2.0-generation agent that needs no domain specialization.
  • The preliminary results suggest the trade-off is not all-or-nothing: personality training improved GSM8K and AlignBench scores while slightly easing MMLU and CMMLU, so continued tuning rather than architectural invention may be the path to integration.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • As an editorial inference, the convergence evidence points to data and training objectives, not model capacity, as the real bottleneck: if one Transformer backbone already handles text, images, and action sequences, the missing piece is a training scheme that combines all their data without one objective dominating.
  • As an editorial inference, the 1.5-generation concept could be tested as a Pareto frontier: collect EQ quality and IQ accuracy across many training runs and check whether the proposed pipeline pushes the frontier outward or merely moves along it; the paper's Table 2 already hints that MMLU and CMMLU may drift down as personification rises.
  • As an editorial inference, the persona-as-data recipe generalizes beyond role-play: negotiation, tutoring, therapy, and customer service all penalize a stiff assistant tone, so the PSR and contrastive-dataset strategy could be reused in those domains with similar synthetic-data construction.
  • As an editorial inference, if IQ and EQ prove genuinely hard to balance in one model, an internal-modularity variant remains open: a generalist planner that routes tasks to specialized internal modules could deliver the NGENT experience without requiring a single monolithic model; the paper does not explore this option.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that next-generation AI agents (NGENT) should integrate capabilities across multiple domains—text, vision, robotics, reinforcement learning, and emotional intelligence—rather than remain specialized, and that this integration is both feasible and necessary for progressing toward AGI. It motivates this position through user demand and technological convergence, then proposes a '1.5-generation agent' that balances IQ and EQ by integrating intelligent assistance with a user-friendly persona. The authors describe a three-stage training pipeline (Instruction Pre-Training, Supervised Fine-Tuning with a Personified Style Rewriter and iterative data generation, and DPO training) and report preliminary results on CharacterEval and several IQ benchmarks as evidence of this balance.

Significance. If the central 'balance without capability loss' claim were rigorously established, the paper would provide a useful proof-of-concept for generalist agents and a concrete training recipe that others could build on. The paper is clearly structured, and the proposed pipeline—IPT, PSR-based data generation, iterative SFT, and DPO—is concrete enough to be implemented and compared. Evaluating on public benchmarks (CharacterEval, MMLU, CMMLU, GSM8K, IFEval, AlignBench) is also a strength. However, the significance is currently limited by the narrow text-only scope of the experiments, the absence of reproducibility details, and the unresolved IQ/EQ trade-off visible in Table 2.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3, §4.2, Table 2] The central feasibility claim that the 1.5-generation agent integrates persona 'without diminishing or even enhancing its intelligence' is not supported by Table 2: NGENT scores 69.96 versus 70.83 for NAIVE+SFT on MMLU and 70.37 versus 71.47 on CMMLU. Since no error bars, seeds, or significance tests are reported, the observed ~0.9-1.1 point deficits are compatible with a real IQ degradation, and the paper's own data leave the 'balance' premise unresolved. This is load-bearing because the entire feasibility argument in Section 3 rests on integration without capability loss.
  2. [§4.1] The claim that Instruction Pre-Training 'achieves excellent experimental results using only approximately 1% of the training data' is unsupported by any ablation: there is no comparison of IPT against CPT, no comparison against IPT with a larger data budget, no dataset-size figures, and no learning curves. Because the 1% efficiency claim is one of the paper's concrete methodological contributions, it needs direct evidence.
  3. [§4.4, Table 2] The experimental setup is under-specified: the base model for NGENT is not identified, the 'NAIVE' baseline is not defined, and no training hyperparameters, few-shot settings, decoding parameters, or evaluation protocols are given for MMLU, CMMLU, GSM8K, IFEval, or AlignBench. This makes the comparison impossible to reproduce and leaves open the possibility that the reported IQ/EQ trade-off is an artifact of the base model or evaluation configuration.
  4. [§4.4, CharacterEval] The personification evaluation is partly circular: the training data in Section 4.2 are generated from over 100K personality role cards and the model is evaluated on CharacterEval, a role-playing dialogue benchmark. Without a held-out evaluation on unseen persona types or an ablation trained without the persona-rich data, the large EQ gains in Table 1 may reflect memorization of the training distribution rather than a generalizable personification ability.
  5. [§2.3.2, footnote 1] The paper declines to justify the algorithmic-convergence premise by calling the role of multi-task, transfer, self-supervised, meta, and reinforcement learning 'self-evident.' Since Section 5.1 acknowledges the specialization objection and the feasibility argument depends on this convergence, the premise should be argued with concrete evidence (e.g., examples of unified models improving rather than degrading on multiple task families) rather than asserted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] The 'AVG' row mixes percentage accuracies (MMLU, CMMLU, GSM8K, IFEval) with the AlignBench score on a different scale, so the aggregate 56.52 is not meaningful; the table should either exclude AlignBench from the average or report a normalized score.
  2. [§4.2.1, §4.3, Table 1] There are several typos: 'creat' should be 'create', 'This stage,' should be 'This stage', and Table 1's title has 'evalution' for 'evaluation'.
  3. [§5.4] The citation 'Ruan et al., 2024' appears twice in the text but only one corresponding reference (Coslight) is listed; please disambiguate or correct the duplicate.
  4. [§4.1, Eq. (1)] The notation in Eq. (1) defines U = {N, C, D} but the loss is written as -log p(D|N,C); please clarify that the background narration and character name are conditioning context and only the dialogue tokens are predicted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the integration thesis is a conceptual argument, and the preliminary experiments evaluate on external benchmarks without relabeling fitted quantities as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a position argument: NGENT should integrate multi-domain abilities because of AGI goals, user demand, and observed technological convergence. This is not derived from a fitted model or from an equation that reduces to its own inputs. The IPT objective (Eq. 1), SFT losses (Eqs. 3–4), and DPO stage are training objectives; the paper does not fit a parameter and then rename it as a prediction. Evaluation uses fixed external benchmarks (MMLU, CMMLU, GSM8K, IFEval, AlignBench, CharacterEval) with standard metrics, and the paper does not state that CharacterEval or the IQ benchmarks were used as training data, so no leakage-based circularity can be asserted from the quoted text. Self-citations (e.g., Mao et al. 2020a,b; Ruan et al. 2023; Kong et al. 2024) are used as examples of existing agent types or related-work pointers, not as load-bearing premises that uniquely force the conclusion, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The naming of a '1.5-generation agent' is a proposed framing rather than a renamed empirical result offered as a derivation. The paper's weaknesses are evidentiary rather than circular: Section 2.3.2's footnote declares the role of learning algorithms 'self-evident,' and Section 5.1 asserts with 'we believe' that a general-purpose agent need not sacrifice performance. These are unsupported assertions and empirical gaps, but they are not exhibited reductions of a claimed prediction to its own input, which the hard rules require for a circularity finding. Therefore the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central feasibility claim rests on four domain assumptions about AGI, architectural convergence, learning-algorithm scaling, and resolvability of the IQ/EQ trade-off. No free parameters are fitted to a scientific law; the training pipeline has many unstated hyperparameters and dataset choices. The invented entities are conceptual labels, not empirically grounded constructs.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AGI requires cross-domain versatility akin to human intelligence.
    Invoked in Section 2.1, citing cognitive science (Norman, 1980; Sternberg, 1999), without establishing that human intelligence is an appropriate target or that versatility is necessary.
  • domain assumption Transformer-based architectural convergence implies feasibility of integrating all agent domains.
    Section 2.3.1 summarizes that LLM, LMM, robotics, and RL agents use Transformers and concludes it 'suggests the potential' for unified systems, which is a logical leap from shared architecture to trainability.
  • domain assumption Advances in multi-task, transfer, self-supervised, meta, and RL learning will scale to a single general agent.
    Section 2.3.2 asserts these algorithms 'are converging to provide the necessary foundation' without evidence or a concrete scaling argument.
  • domain assumption The IQ/EQ trade-off can be bridged without meaningful performance loss.
    Stated in Section 3 and contradicted in part by Table 2, where NGENT underperforms the SFT baseline on MMLU and CMMLU.
  • domain assumption User demand for all-in-one agents makes integration necessary.
    Section 2.2 asserts growing consumer and enterprise demand without providing quantitative evidence or considering alternative solutions such as multi-agent collaboration.
invented entities (2)
  • NGENT (next-generation AI agent)
    purpose: Conceptual label for a hypothetical general-purpose agent integrating multiple domains.
    Defined in the abstract and Section 1; no empirical handle is provided beyond the pilot model, which only touches persona and IQ.
  • 1.5-generation agent (1.5-G Agent)
    purpose: A proposed hybrid model balancing intelligent assistance and persona as a stepping stone to full NGENT.
    Introduced in Section 3 and implemented as a pilot; not shown to generalize to robotics, tool use, OS control, or other domains the paper lists.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NGENT: Next-Generation AI Agents Must Integrate Multi-Domain Abilities to Achieve Artificial General Intelligence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JMK7DYNG

@misc{pith2026250421433,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NGENT: Next-Generation AI Agents Must Integrate Multi-Domain Abilities to Achieve Artificial General Intelligence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JMK7DYNG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21433}
}
read the original abstract

This paper argues that the next generation of AI agent (NGENT) should integrate across-domain abilities to advance toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Although current AI agents are effective in specialized tasks such as robotics, role-playing, and tool-using, they remain confined to narrow domains. We propose that future AI agents should synthesize the strengths of these specialized systems into a unified framework capable of operating across text, vision, robotics, reinforcement learning, emotional intelligence, and beyond. This integration is not only feasible but also essential for achieving the versatility and adaptability that characterize human intelligence. The convergence of technologies across AI domains, coupled with increasing user demand for cross-domain capabilities, suggests that such integration is within reach. Ultimately, the development of these versatile agents is a critical step toward realizing AGI. This paper explores the rationale for this shift, potential pathways for achieving it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21433 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The position of this paper. Similar to how GPT-3 and GPT-4 revolutionized natural language processing by excelling in virtually all NLP tasks, we propose that the next generation of AI agents should demonstrate comparable versatility across a wide range of domains. els. As demonstrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The landscape of foundation model-based AI agents. Current research primarily concentrates on specific domains, such as intelligent assistants (e.g., ChatGPT), role-playing (e.g., C.AI), coding (e.g., CodeLlama (Roziere et al., 2023) and Deepseek-Coder (Guo et al., 2024)), tool usage (e.g., TPTU (Ruan et al., 2023) and TPTU-2 (Kong et al., 2024)), OS operations (e.g., OS-copilot (Wu et al., 2024)), or robotic contro… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al

    Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774,

  2. [9]

    Clickagent: Enhancing ui loca- tion capabilities of autonomous agents

    Hoscilowicz, J., Maj, B., Kozakiewicz, B., Tymoshchuk, O., and Janicki, A. Clickagent: Enhancing ui loca- tion capabilities of autonomous agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11872,

  3. [10]

    P., Perelman, A., Ramesh, A., Clark, A., Ostrow, A., Welihinda, A., Hayes, A., Radford, A., et al

    Hurst, A., Lerer, A., Goucher, A. P., Perelman, A., Ramesh, A., Clark, A., Ostrow, A., Welihinda, A., Hayes, A., Radford, A., et al. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276,

  4. [11]

    Openai o1 system card

    Jaech, A., Kalai, A., Lerer, A., Richardson, A., El-Kishky, A., Low, A., Helyar, A., Madry, A., Beutel, A., Car- ney, A., et al. Openai o1 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720,

  5. [12]

    Y ., Lo, R., Jang, L., Duvvur, V ., Lim, M

    Koh, J. Y ., Lo, R., Jang, L., Duvvur, V ., Lim, M. C., Huang, P.-Y ., Neubig, G., Zhou, S., Salakhutdinov, R., and Fried, D. Visualwebarena: Evaluating multimodal agents on re- alistic visual web tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13649,

  6. [13]

    Tptu-v2: Boosting task planning and tool usage of large language model-based agents in real-world systems

    Kong, Y ., Ruan, J., Chen, Y ., Zhang, B., Bao, T., Shi, S., Du, G., Hu, X., Mao, H., Li, Z., et al. Tptu-v2: Boosting task planning and tool usage of large language model-based agents in real-world systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11315,

  7. [14]

    Tptu-v2: Boosting task planning and tool usage of large language model-based agents in real-world industry systems

    9 NGENT: Next-Generation AI Agents Must Integrate Multi-Domain Abilities to Achieve Artificial General Intelligence Kong, Y ., Ruan, J., Chen, Y ., Zhang, B., Bao, T., Shiwei, S., Qing, D., Hu, X., Mao, H., Li, Z., et al. Tptu-v2: Boosting task planning and tool usage of large language model-based agents in real-world industry systems. In Proceedings of t...

  8. [15]

    Deep reinforcement learning for dialogue generation

    Li, J., Monroe, W., Ritter, A., Galley, M., Gao, J., and Jurafsky, D. Deep reinforcement learning for dialogue generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01541,

Show all 27 references
  1. [17]

    Neighborhood cognition consistent multi- agent reinforcement learning

    Mao, H., Liu, W., Hao, J., Luo, J., Li, D., Zhang, Z., Wang, J., and Xiao, Z. Neighborhood cognition consistent multi- agent reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pp. 7219– 7226, 2020a. Mao, H., Zhang, Z., Xiao, Z....

  2. [18]

    Screenagent: A vision language model-driven computer control agent

    Niu, R., Li, J., Wang, S., Fu, Y ., Hu, X., Leng, X., Kong, H., Chang, Y ., and Wang, Q. Screenagent: A vision language model-driven computer control agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07945,

  3. [20]

    E., Adi, Y ., Liu, J., Sauvestre, R., Remez, T., et al

    Roziere, B., Gehring, J., Gloeckle, F., Sootla, S., Gat, I., Tan, X. E., Adi, Y ., Liu, J., Sauvestre, R., Remez, T., et al. Code llama: Open foundation models for code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12950,

  4. [21]

    Tptu: Task planning and tool usage of large language model-based ai agents

    Ruan, J., Chen, Y ., Zhang, B., Xu, Z., Bao, T., Mao, H., Li, Z., Zeng, X., Zhao, R., et al. Tptu: Task planning and tool usage of large language model-based ai agents. In NeurIPS 2023 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop,

  5. [22]

    Character-llm: A trainable agent for role-playing

    Shao, Y ., Li, L., Dai, J., and Qiu, X. Character-llm: A trainable agent for role-playing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10158,

  6. [24]

    Os-copilot: Towards generalist computer agents with self-improvement

    Wu, Z., Han, C., Ding, Z., Weng, Z., Liu, Z., Yao, S., Yu, T., and Kong, L. Os-copilot: Towards generalist computer agents with self-improvement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07456,

  7. [25]

    The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey

    Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y ., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., et al. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07864,

  8. [26]

    Large multimodal agents: A survey

    Xie, J., Chen, Z., Zhang, R., Wan, X., and Li, G. Large multimodal agents: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15116,

  9. [27]

    Con- trolling large language model-based agents for large- scale decision-making: An actor-critic approach

    Zhang, B., Mao, H., Ruan, J., Wen, Y ., Li, Y ., Zhang, S., Xu, Z., Li, D., Li, Z., Zhao, R., et al. Con- trolling large language model-based agents for large- scale decision-making: An actor-critic approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13884, 2023a. Zhang, B., Mao, H., Li, L., ...

  10. [1980]

    Tool learning with foundation models

    Qin, Y ., Hu, S., Lin, Y ., Chen, W., Ding, N., Cui, G., Zeng, Z., Huang, Y ., Xiao, C., Han, C., et al. Tool learning with foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08354 , 2023a. Qin, Y ., Liang, S., Ye, Y ., Zhu, K., Yan, L., Lu, Y ., Lin, Y ., Cong, X., Tang, X., Qian, ...

  11. [1997]

    Deepseek-coder: When the large language model meets programming–the rise of code intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14196,

    Guo, D., Zhu, Q., Yang, D., Xie, Z., Dong, K., Zhang, W., Chen, G., Bi, X., Wu, Y ., Li, Y ., et al. Deepseek-coder: When the large language model meets programming–the rise of code intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14196,

  12. [1998]

    From persona to personalization: A survey on role-playing language agents

    Chen, J., Wang, X., Xu, R., Yuan, S., Zhang, Y ., Shi, W., Xie, J., Li, S., Yang, R., Zhu, T., et al. From persona to personalization: A survey on role-playing language agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18231,

  13. [1999]

    Mobile-agent: Autonomous multi-modal mobile device agent with visual perception

    Wang, J., Xu, H., Ye, J., Yan, M., Shen, W., Zhang, J., Huang, F., and Sang, J. Mobile-agent: Autonomous multi-modal mobile device agent with visual perception. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16158, 2024a. Wang, L., Ma, C., Feng, X., Zhang, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Tang, ...

  14. [2010]

    Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale

    Brohan, A., Brown, N., Carbajal, J., Chebotar, Y ., Dabis, J., Finn, C., Gopalakrishnan, K., Hausman, K., Herzog, A., Hsu, J., et al. Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817,

  15. [2016]

    Pet-sql: A prompt- enhanced two-stage text-to-sql framework with cross- consistency

    Li, Z., Wang, X., Zhao, J., Yang, S., Du, G., Hu, X., Zhang, B., Ye, Y ., Li, Z., Zhao, R., et al. Pet-sql: A prompt- enhanced two-stage text-to-sql framework with cross- consistency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09732,

  16. [2021]

    Ptde: Personalized training with distillated execution for multi-agent reinforcement learning

    Chen, Y ., Mao, H., Zhang, T., Wu, S., Zhang, B., Hao, J., Li, D., Wang, B., and Chang, H. Ptde: Personalized training with distillated execution for multi-agent reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08872,

  17. [2022]

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control

    Brohan, A., Brown, N., Carbajal, J., Chebotar, Y ., Chen, X., Choromanski, K., Ding, T., Driess, D., Dubey, A., Finn, C., et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818,

  18. [2023]

    D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al

    Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877–1901,

  19. [2024]

    Webvoyager: Building an end-to-end web agent with large multimodal models

    He, H., Yao, W., Ma, K., Yu, W., Dai, Y ., Zhang, H., Lan, Z., and Yu, D. Webvoyager: Building an end-to-end web agent with large multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13919,

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.