Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Two Experts Are All You Need for Steering Thinking: Reinforcing Cognitive Effort in MoE Reasoning Models Without Additional Training

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Multiplying the routing weights of two identified "cognitive experts" by 64 raises DeepSeek-R1's AIME24 accuracy from 73.3% to 83.3% and its AIME25 accuracy from 63.3% to 73.3%, with no additional training.

desk verdict Cheap and potentially useful inference-time MoE steering, but the headline gain is partly in-sample and the 'cognitive expert' interpretation needs a token-matched control. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14681 v2 pith:IREKU4KR submitted 2025-05-20 cs.AI cs.CLcs.CVcs.IRcs.LG

Mengru Wang , Xingyu Chen , Yue Wang , Zhiwei He , Jiahao Xu , Tian Liang , Qiuzhi Liu , Yunzhi Yao
show 7 more authors
Wenxuan Wang Ruotian Ma Haitao Mi Ningyu Zhang Zhaopeng Tu Xiaolong Li Dong Yu
This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.CVcs.IRcs.LG
keywords mixture-of-expertscognitiveexpertsexpertsteeringnPMIreasoningefficiencytest-timeinterventionDeepSeek-R1underthinking
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

Multiplying the routing weight of just two experts, identified by their co-occurrence with `` tokens, at inference time improves both accuracy and token efficiency in DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen3-235B. On AIME24, DeepSeek-R1 rises from 73.3% to 83.3%; on the unseen AIME25, from 63.3% to 73.3%, and the same recipe transfers to Qwen3-235B. The method needs no gradient updates, no prompt changes, and only a single forward pass to identify the experts. If the empirical claim holds, reasoning quality in MoE models can be steered cheaply by modulating a tiny expert subset rather than retraining or constraining decoding.

What carries the argument

The nPMI selection score given in Eq. 6: for each expert, compute the normalized pointwise mutual information between its activation and a set of thinking tokens, weighted by coefficients c_<think> = 1, c_</think> = -1, and c_Alternatively = -1, then select the top-l experts as the cognitive expert set. The steering operation is a simple weight multiplication w_i <- w_i * beta for experts in that set, with beta = 64 and l = 2. nPMI marks experts whose activation co-occurs almost exclusively with the start-of-think token and not with end-of-think or alternative-branch tokens.

What would settle it

Run the same nPMI identification and weight amplification on a model whose thinking tokens are renamed without retraining, for instance replace `<think>` with `[reason]`: if the identified cognitive experts change completely and the accuracy gain disappears, the effect depends on token-format artifacts rather than reasoning substance. Alternatively, set the two identified experts' weights to zero and check whether accuracy stays unchanged.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that two experts per model, namely DeepSeek-R1's (39,182) and (29,126) and Qwen3-235B's (70,47) and (23,115), act as cognitive experts: they fire disproportionately on reasoning-marker tokens, and when their gating weights are multiplied by 64, they shift the model toward committing to correct reasoning paths. The paper reports accuracy gains on AIME24 and AIME25 while reducing thought count and tokens on several benchmarks, and shows that the same experts transfer across math, physics, and the aggregated "All" condition. The authors are explicit that the "cognitive expert" is a hypothetical construct with no theoretical justification; the case is empirical.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that which experts fire alongside the literal `<think>` token is a reliable sign of which experts actually do the reasoning, and not just a quirk of how that special-format token is processed; the paper itself labels the "cognitive expert" a hypothetical construct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Boosting two cognitive experts improves DeepSeek-R1's AIME24 accuracy by 10 points and AIME25 accuracy by 10 points without additional training.
  • The gains come with fewer or comparable tokens, with AIME24 thoughts dropping from 12.0 to 10.2 and tokens from 9,219 to 8,317, so the effect is not simply longer output.
  • The same two-expert intervention generalizes across math, physics, and chemistry and to an unseen harder exam set.
  • The method outperforms prompt placement and thinking-token decoding constraints by 2.0 average points on the AIME benchmarks.
  • General instruction-following on ArenaHard is maintained or slightly improved, from 91.0% to 92.0% with the aggregated "All" experts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the effect is real, it suggests that a model's overt reasoning format is controlled by a sparse, stable set of routing units, so other meta-cognitive behaviors such as verification, backtracking, and confidence might each have their own small expert sets addressable by the same nPMI scan.
  • The nPMI selector could be repurposed as a diagnostic for whether a reasoning model's "thinking" is semantically grounded or merely token-format-triggered; comparing cognitive experts found on formal symbolic reasoning versus natural-language puzzles would test that.
  • A practical implication is that cheap inference-time steering could be deployed in production without changing weights, but only if the identified experts are stable across prompts, seeds, and model checkpoints, which the paper does not fully establish.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RICE, an inference-time method that identifies 'cognitive experts' in MoE reasoning models by computing nPMI between expert activations and the tokens <think>, </think>, and Alternatively, then amplifies the top-l such experts' router weights by a multiplier beta. The method requires no training. Experiments on DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen3-235B report accuracy gains on AIME24 (73.3 to 83.3 for DeepSeek-R1), AIME25 (63.3 to 73.3), mixed GPQA-domain changes, and neutral-to-positive ArenaHard instruction-following results. The authors explicitly state that the 'cognitive expert' is a hypothetical construct and that their conclusions are purely empirical.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper contributes an unusually lightweight and interpretable steering mechanism for large MoE reasoning models, with potential practical value and a concrete hypothesis about expert semantic specialization. The authors should be credited for a simple identification procedure requiring a single forward pass, useful controls (random expert selection, renormalization, pass@k), and a transparent limitations statement. However, the headline effect is partly in-sample, the independent evidence is based on very small benchmarks, and no control rules out selection by token-format association rather than by causal reasoning relevance. These issues currently prevent the paper from supporting its causal 'cognitive expert' interpretation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Tables 2 and 3] The headline AIME24 result (73.3 to 83.3) is partly in-sample: expert identification, the choice of l=2, and the multiplier beta=64 are all selected by grid search on AIME24, and the same benchmark is then reported as the main gain. The only fully independent evidence is AIME25, which contains 30 questions, so the 10-point improvement corresponds to three additional solved problems; no confidence intervals or significance tests are provided. Please evaluate on a disjoint validation set for hyperparameter selection, and report binomial or McNemar intervals for AIME24, AIME25, and the GPQA domains.
  2. [Section 2.1 and 'On the Cognitive Expert'] The paper states that the 'cognitive expert' is a hypothetical construct with no theoretical justification. Because the nPMI scores are computed against the format tokens <think>, </think>, and Alternatively, the procedure may select experts that fire on special tokens rather than experts causally involved in reasoning. The random-expert baseline in Table 2 does not address this, since random experts are not matched on nPMI or token association. Please add a token-matched control: select experts by the same nPMI procedure using control tokens (e.g., 'Therefore', 'However', or non-reasoning special tokens) and show that boosting them does not reproduce the AIME24/AIME25 gains; also report whether the same experts are selected when identification is performed on held-out problems.
  3. [Table 8 and Table 3] The appendix reports Qwen3-235B math cognitive experts as (39, 182), (29, 126), etc., identical to the DeepSeek-R1 entries in Table 1, yet the main Qwen3 experiments in Table 3 use {(70,47), (23,115)}. Since Section 3.1 states Qwen3-235B selects 8 experts from a total of 128, entries such as (39,182) are not valid expert IDs for that model. This inconsistency must be corrected; as written, it undermines the Qwen3 generalization claims.
  4. [Section 3.3, Table 4] The claim of 'consistent improvements' across domains is not supported by Table 4: math-selected experts reduce Physics from 91.9 to 89.5, and biology-selected experts reduce the average relative to baseline (71.9 vs. 73.4). The aggregated 'All' improvement of 75.6 vs. 73.4 is driven mostly by Math. Please provide per-domain significance tests or a corrected formulation of the claim, and avoid interpreting a 2.2-point average gain on the combined AIME24 and GPQA mix as robust given the small AIME24 sample.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (4)-(5)] The definition of kn is ambiguous for tokens where multiple experts are selected; please specify whether counts are per (token position, expert) pair and how the gating weights enter the counts.
  2. [Section 3.2 and title] The text contains 'these cognitive cognitive experts' (duplicated word) and the title has an unusual spacing in 'Y ou'; both should be corrected.
  3. [Table 6] The claimed 2.0-point average gain over TIPt is driven by AIME24; on AIME25 both methods achieve 73.3, so the comparison should be described as AIME24-specific.
  4. [Section 3.4] The ArenaHard evaluation uses 50 randomly selected queries and GPT-4-Turbo pairwise judgments; please state the number of comparisons, agreement or variance, and why 50 queries are sufficient to support the neutral-impact conclusion.
  5. [Appendix B.2] The pass@1 result on AIME25 for DeepSeek-R1 decreases from 68.5 to 67.7 under RICE, which contradicts the text claiming consistent improvements; please reconcile this with the pass@8 discussion.
  6. [Appendix B.3 and main text] It is not clear whether the main paper results (Tables 2-4) use renormalization; please state this explicitly in the setup, since Table 11 shows that renormalization changes qualitative conclusions, including AIME25 (63.3 vs. 73.3).
  7. [Section 5] The Conclusion is followed by a truncated duplicate paragraph beginning 'itive experts" within MoE...', which should be removed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

AIME24 headline gain is an in-sample tuning result; out-of-sample AIME25 support is independent but small.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Tables 2-3 (with Eq. 6-7 in Section 2.2)]
    "Once identified, we reinforce the cognitive experts identified from the Math domain (AIME24) and evaluate their performance under different reinforcement configurations on the same benchmark AIME24 (Table 2). The optimal hyperparameters – the number of cognitive experts l and the steering multiplier β—are selected based on this evaluation and used in all subsequent experiments. ..."

    The expert identities P are derived from nPMI scores computed on AIME24 responses, and the number of experts l and multiplier β are chosen by maximizing AIME24 accuracy in Table 2. The reported 73.3% to 83.3% AIME24 result is therefore the best configuration selected on the same 30-problem benchmark, not an out-of-sample prediction; the abstract's claim of 'consistent improvements' leans in part on this in-sample optimum. AIME25 and the GPQA cross-domain evaluations are genuinely held out and mitigate the issue, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The paper makes no pretense of a theoretical derivation: it explicitly labels the 'cognitive expert' a hypothetical construct and states that conclusions are purely empirical. The nPMI selection is a correlational definition, and the AIME25 and GPQA results are real out-of-sample evaluations, so the central accuracy claim is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The main circularity concern is that expert identification, hyperparameter tuning, and the flagship AIME24 evaluation all use the same 30-problem set; the paper discloses this in Section 3.2, but the abstract-level phrasing 'noticeable and consistent improvements' leans on that in-sample result. The self-citations to the authors' prior work on underthinking (Wang et al., 2025a) are used for the Thoughts metric and the TIPt baseline, but they are not load-bearing for the accuracy claim. Overall score 4 reflects partial, selection-based circularity rather than definitional equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method's central claim rests on several hand-chosen components: the set of thinking tokens, the coefficient signs in Eq. 6, the number of experts, and the multiplier beta. The only invented entity is the 'cognitive expert', which the paper itself labels hypothetical. No theory links nPMI co-occurrence to causal reasoning function.

free parameters (4)
  • Reinforcement multiplier beta = 64 (peak also at 4, 32, 128 on AIME24; 83.3%)
    Grid-searched on AIME24 in Table 2 and fixed for all later experiments (Section 3.2). This is a free parameter fitted to the same set used for the headline result.
  • Number of cognitive experts l = 2 (Top2)
    Selected by comparing Top1-Top5 on AIME24 (Table 2); l=2 is most robust. Sensitivity is high: Top3-Top5 collapse at large multipliers (e.g., Top5 13.3% at beta=128).
  • nPMI token coefficients (c_think, c_endthink, c_Alternatively) = 1, -1, -1
    Hand-assigned in Eq. 6 to favor initiation over termination, based on observed bimodal association; no ablation or theoretical justification.
  • Thinking token set Pi = {<think>, </think>, Alternatively}
    Chosen by authors as markers of reasoning; results depend on this choice and no sensitivity analysis is given (Eq. 6).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption MoE routing in DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen3 exhibits semantic expert specialization, so nPMI with surface markers reveals functional roles.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 via Olson et al. (2025); if routing is token-dependent, the identified experts are artifacts of <think> token formatting.
  • domain assumption The tokens <think>, </think>, and 'Alternatively' are reliable indicators of cognitive deliberation, and expert co-occurrence with them measures reasoning-related function.
    Used in Eq. 5-6; not validated, and the paper calls the construct hypothetical (Section 1).
  • domain assumption Multiplying the router weight of selected experts by beta preserves model behavior enough to evaluate the intervention.
    Eq. 7; Appendix B.3 shows without renormalization, high beta degrades outputs (3.3% accuracy at 2048), so the safe operating range is a fragile assumption.
invented entities (1)
  • Cognitive experts (e.g., DeepSeek-R1 (39,182) and (29,126))
    purpose: Posited to orchestrate meta-level reasoning operations tied to thinking tokens; used to justify why boosting two experts improves accuracy.
    The paper explicitly states 'the cognitive expert proposed in this work is a hypothetical construct' with no theoretical justification (Section 1, footnote 1). The only support is the paper's own empirical steering results; no external mechanistic evidence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two Experts Are All You Need for Steering Thinking: Reinforcing Cognitive Effort in MoE Reasoning Models Without Additional Training." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IREKU4KR

@misc{pith2026250514681,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two Experts Are All You Need for Steering Thinking: Reinforcing Cognitive Effort in MoE Reasoning Models Without Additional Training},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IREKU4KR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14681}
}
read the original abstract

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures within Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved impressive reasoning capabilities by selectively activating experts to facilitate structured cognitive processes. Despite notable advances, existing reasoning models often suffer from cognitive inefficiencies like overthinking and underthinking. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel inference-time steering methodology called Reinforcing Cognitive Experts (RICE), designed to improve reasoning performance without additional training or complex heuristics. Leveraging normalized Pointwise Mutual Information (nPMI), we systematically identify specialized experts, termed ''cognitive experts'' that orchestrate meta-level reasoning operations characterized by tokens like ''<think>''. Empirical evaluations with leading MoE-based LRMs (DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen3-235B) on rigorous quantitative and scientific reasoning benchmarks demonstrate noticeable and consistent improvements in reasoning accuracy, cognitive efficiency, and cross-domain generalization. Crucially, our lightweight approach substantially outperforms prevalent reasoning-steering techniques, such as prompt design and decoding constraints, while preserving the model's general instruction-following skills. These results highlight reinforcing cognitive experts as a promising, practical, and interpretable direction to enhance cognitive efficiency within advanced reasoning models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14681 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Illustration of cognitive experts identified across domains. (b) Reinforcing only the top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Theory of Inference Compute Scaling: Reasoning through Directed Stochastic Skill Search

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A skill-graph random-walk model gives closed-form accuracy-versus-compute formulas for four reasoning strategies and connects them to training scaling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Qwen3: Think deeper, act faster

    Qwen Team. Qwen3: Think deeper, act faster. 2025. URL https://qwenlm.github.io/zh/blog/qwen3/

    2025

  3. [3]

    Do NOT think that much for 2+3=? on the overthinking of o1-like llms

    Xingyu Chen, Jiahao Xu, Tian Liang, Zhiwei He, Jianhui Pang, Dian Yu, Linfeng Song, Qiuzhi Liu, Mengfei Zhou, Zhuosheng Zhang, Rui Wang, Zhaopeng Tu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. Do NOT think that much for 2+3=? on the overthinking of o1-like llms. CoRR, abs/2412.21187, 2024. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2412.21187. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.21187

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.21187 2024

  4. [4]

    Thoughts are all over the place: On the underthinking of o1-like llms

    Yue Wang, Qiuzhi Liu, Jiahao Xu, Tian Liang, Xingyu Chen, Zhiwei He, Linfeng Song, Dian Yu, Juntao Li, Zhuosheng Zhang, Rui Wang, Zhaopeng Tu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. Thoughts are all over the place: On the underthinking of o1-like llms. CoRR, abs/2501.18585, 2025 a . doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2501.18585. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.18585

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.18585 2025

  5. [5]

    Openai o1 system card

    Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Test-time computing: from system-1 thinking to system-2 thinking

    Yixin Ji, Juntao Li, Hai Ye, Kaixin Wu, Jia Xu, Linjian Mo, and Min Zhang. Test-time computing: from system-1 thinking to system-2 thinking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02497, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    What, how, where, and how well? a survey on test-time scaling in large language models

    Qiyuan Zhang, Fuyuan Lyu, Zexu Sun, Lei Wang, Weixu Zhang, Zhihan Guo, Yufei Wang, Irwin King, Xue Liu, and Chen Ma. What, how, where, and how well? a survey on test-time scaling in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.24235, 2025 a

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Stop overthinking: A survey on efficient reasoning for large language models

    Yang Sui, Yu-Neng Chuang, Guanchu Wang, Jiamu Zhang, Tianyi Zhang, Jiayi Yuan, Hongyi Liu, Andrew Wen, Shaochen Zhong, Hanjie Chen, et al. Stop overthinking: A survey on efficient reasoning for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16419, 2025 a

    arXiv 2025

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Efficient reasoning models: A survey

    Sicheng Feng, Gongfan Fang, Xinyin Ma, and Xinchao Wang. Efficient reasoning models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10903, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    A survey of slow thinking-based reasoning llms using reinforced learning and inference-time scaling law

    Qianjun Pan, Wenkai Ji, Yuyang Ding, Junsong Li, Shilian Chen, Junyi Wang, Jie Zhou, Qin Chen, Min Zhang, Yulan Wu, et al. A survey of slow thinking-based reasoning llms using reinforced learning and inference-time scaling law. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02665, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A survey of efficient reasoning for large reasoning models: Language, multimodality, and beyond

    Xiaoye Qu, Yafu Li, Zhaochen Su, Weigao Sun, Jianhao Yan, Dongrui Liu, Ganqu Cui, Daizong Liu, Shuxian Liang, Junxian He, et al. A survey of efficient reasoning for large reasoning models: Language, multimodality, and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21614, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Towards reasoning era: A survey of long chain-of-thought for reasoning large language models

    Qiguang Chen, Libo Qin, Jinhao Liu, Dengyun Peng, Jiannan Guan, Peng Wang, Mengkang Hu, Yuhang Zhou, Te Gao, and Wanxiang Che. Towards reasoning era: A survey of long chain-of-thought for reasoning large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09567, 2025 a

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Harnessing the reasoning economy: A survey of efficient reasoning for large language models

    Rui Wang, Hongru Wang, Boyang Xue, Jianhui Pang, Shudong Liu, Yi Chen, Jiahao Qiu, Derek Fai Wong, Heng Ji, and Kam-Fai Wong. Harnessing the reasoning economy: A survey of efficient reasoning for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.24377, 2025 b

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Effectively controlling reasoning models through thinking intervention

    Tong Wu, Chong Xiang, Jiachen T Wang, and Prateek Mittal. Effectively controlling reasoning models through thinking intervention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.24370, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Retro-search: Exploring untaken paths for deeper and efficient reasoning

    Ximing Lu, Seungju Han, David Acuna, Hyunwoo Kim, Jaehun Jung, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Niklas Muennighoff, Mostofa Patwary, Mohammad Shoeybi, Bryan Catanzaro, et al. Retro-search: Exploring untaken paths for deeper and efficient reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04383, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Deepseekmoe: Towards ultimate expert specialization in mixture-of-experts language models

    Damai Dai, Chengqi Deng, Chenggang Zhao, RX Xu, Huazuo Gao, Deli Chen, Jiashi Li, Wangding Zeng, Xingkai Yu, Yu Wu, et al. Deepseekmoe: Towards ultimate expert specialization in mixture-of-experts language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06066, 2024 a

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zhang, Han Bao, Hanwei Xu, Haocheng Wang, Haowei Zhang, Honghui Ding, Huajian Xin, Huazuo Gao, Hui Li, Hui Qu, J

    DeepSeek - AI, Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, Damai Dai, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Deli Chen, Dongjie Ji, Erhang Li, Fangyun Lin, Fucong Dai, Fuli Luo, Guangbo Hao, Guanting Chen, Guowei...

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Openmoe: An early effort on open mixture-of-experts language models

    Fuzhao Xue, Zian Zheng, Yao Fu, Jinjie Ni, Zangwei Zheng, Wangchunshu Zhou, and Yang You. Openmoe: An early effort on open mixture-of-experts language models. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024 . OpenReview...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Working memory revived in older adults by synchronizing rhythmic brain circuits

    Robert MG Reinhart and John A Nguyen. Working memory revived in older adults by synchronizing rhythmic brain circuits. Nature neuroscience, 22 0 (5): 0 820--827, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Neurocognitive, physiological, and biophysical effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation

    Miles Wischnewski, Ivan Alekseichuk, and Alexander Opitz. Neurocognitive, physiological, and biophysical effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27 0 (2): 0 189--205, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Non-invasively targeting, probing and modulating a deep brain circuit for depression alleviation

    Desmond J Oathes, Romain JP Duprat, Justin Reber, Ximo Liang, Morgan Scully, Hannah Long, Joseph A Deluisi, Yvette I Sheline, and Kristin A Linn. Non-invasively targeting, probing and modulating a deep brain circuit for depression alleviation. Nature Mental Health, 1 0 (12): 0...

    2023

  14. [22]

    High-frequency neuromodulation improves obsessive--compulsive behavior

    Shrey Grover, John A Nguyen, Vighnesh Viswanathan, and Robert MG Reinhart. High-frequency neuromodulation improves obsessive--compulsive behavior. Nature medicine, 27 0 (2): 0 232--238, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction

    Gerlof Bouma. Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. Proceedings of GSCL, 30: 0 31--40, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    Semantic specialization in moe appears with scale: A study of deepseek r1 expert specialization

    Matthew Lyle Olson, Neale Ratzlaff, Musashi Hinck, Man Luo, Sungduk Yu, Chendi Xue, and Vasudev Lal. Semantic specialization in moe appears with scale: A study of deepseek r1 expert specialization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10928, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Aime problems and solutions

    MAA Committees . Aime problems and solutions. https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/AIME_Problems_and_Solutions

  18. [26]

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R. Bowman. GPQA : A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Ti67584b98

    2024

  19. [27]

    Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica

    Tianle Li, Wei - Lin Chiang, Evan Frick, Lisa Dunlap, Tianhao Wu, Banghua Zhu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. From crowdsourced data to high-quality benchmarks: Arena-hard and benchbuilder pipeline. CoRR, abs/2406.11939, 2024. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.11939

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    Generative ai act ii: Test time scaling drives cognition engineering

    Shijie Xia, Yiwei Qin, Xuefeng Li, Yan Ma, Run-Ze Fan, Steffi Chern, Haoyang Zou, Fan Zhou, Xiangkun Hu, Jiahe Jin, et al. Generative ai act ii: Test time scaling drives cognition engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13828, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Qwq: Reflect deeply on the boundaries of the unknown

    Qwen. Qwq: Reflect deeply on the boundaries of the unknown. 2024. URL https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwq-32b-preview/

    2024

  22. [30]

    Claude 3.7 sonnet

    Anthropic. Claude 3.7 sonnet. 2025. URL https://www.anthropic.com/claude/sonnet

    2025

  23. [31]

    Kimi Team, Angang Du, Bofei Gao, Bowei Xing, Changjiu Jiang, Cheng Chen, Cheng Li, Chenjun Xiao, Chenzhuang Du, Chonghua Liao, et al. Kimi k1. 5: Scaling reinforcement learning with llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12599, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Damai Dai, Chengqi Deng, Chenggang Zhao, R. X. Xu, Huazuo Gao, Deli Chen, Jiashi Li, Wangding Zeng, Xingkai Yu, Y. Wu, Zhenda Xie, Y. K. Li, Panpan Huang, Fuli Luo, Chong Ruan, Zhifang Sui, and Wenfeng Liang. Deepseekmoe: Towards ultimate expert specialization in mixture-of-ex...

    2024

  25. [33]

    The llama 4 herd: The beginning of a new era of natively multimodal ai innovation

    Llama. The llama 4 herd: The beginning of a new era of natively multimodal ai innovation. 2025. URL https://www.llama.com/models/llama-4/

    2025

  26. [34]

    Smith, Pang Wei Koh, Amanpreet Singh, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi

    Niklas Muennighoff, Luca Soldaini, Dirk Groeneveld, Kyle Lo, Jacob Morrison, Sewon Min, Weijia Shi, Pete Walsh, Oyvind Tafjord, Nathan Lambert, Yuling Gu, Shane Arora, Akshita Bhagia, Dustin Schwenk, David Wadden, Alexander Wettig, Binyuan Hui, Tim Dettmers, Douwe Kiela, Ali F...

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    Le, Geoffrey E

    Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc V. Le, Geoffrey E. Hinton, and Jeff Dean. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, Franc...

    2017

  28. [36]

    Mixture of tunable experts--behavior modification of deepseek-r1 at inference time

    Robert Dahlke, Henrik Klagges, Dan Zecha, Benjamin Merkel, Sven Rohr, and Fabian Klemm. Mixture of tunable experts--behavior modification of deepseek-r1 at inference time. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11096, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Under the hood of a reasoning model

    Dron Hazra, Max Loeffler, Murat Cubuktepe, Levon Avagyan, Liv Gorton, Mark Bissell, Owen Lewis, Thomas McGrath, and Daniel Balsam. Under the hood of a reasoning model. 2025. URL https://www.goodfire.ai/blog/under-the-hood-of-a-reasoning-model

    2025

  30. [38]

    Stop overthinking: A survey on efficient reasoning for large language models

    Yang Sui, Yu - Neng Chuang, Guanchu Wang, Jiamu Zhang, Tianyi Zhang, Jiayi Yuan, Hongyi Liu, Andrew Wen, Shaochen Zhong, Hanjie Chen, and Xia Ben Hu. Stop overthinking: A survey on efficient reasoning for large language models. CoRR, abs/2503.16419, 2025 b . doi:10.48550/ARXIV...

    2025 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Gonzalez

    Alejandro Cuadron, Dacheng Li, Wenjie Ma, Xingyao Wang, Yichuan Wang, Siyuan Zhuang, Shu Liu, Luis Gaspar Schroeder, Tian Xia, Huanzhi Mao, Nicholas Thumiger, Aditya Desai, Ion Stoica, Ana Klimovic, Graham Neubig, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. The danger of overthinking: Examining t...

    2025 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    Trading inference-time compute for adversarial robustness

    Wojciech Zaremba, Evgenia Nitishinskaya, Boaz Barak, Stephanie Lin, Sam Toyer, Yaodong Yu, Rachel Dias, Eric Wallace, Kai Xiao, Johannes Heidecke, et al. Trading inference-time compute for adversarial robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18841, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    The relationship between reasoning and performance in large language models--o3 (mini) thinks harder, not longer

    Marthe Ballon, Andres Algaba, and Vincent Ginis. The relationship between reasoning and performance in large language models--o3 (mini) thinks harder, not longer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15631, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Learning to stop overthinking at test time

    Bao Hieu Tran, Nguyen Cong Dat, Nguyen Duc Anh, and Hoang Thanh - Tung. Learning to stop overthinking at test time. CoRR, abs/2502.10954, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2502.10954. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.10954

    2025 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Dynamic parallel tree search for efficient LLM reasoning

    Yifu Ding, Wentao Jiang, Shunyu Liu, Yongcheng Jing, Jinyang Guo, Yingjie Wang, Jing Zhang, Zengmao Wang, Ziwei Liu, Bo Du, Xianglong Liu, and Dacheng Tao. Dynamic parallel tree search for efficient LLM reasoning. CoRR, abs/2502.16235, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2502.16235. URL ...

    2025 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Can atomic step decomposition enhance the self-structured reasoning of multimodal large models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06252, 2025

    Kun Xiang, Zhili Liu, Zihao Jiang, Yunshuang Nie, Kaixin Cai, Yiyang Yin, Runhui Huang, Haoxiang Fan, Hanhui Li, Weiran Huang, et al. Can atomic step decomposition enhance the self-structured reasoning of multimodal large models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06252, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Reasoning models can be effective without thinking

    Wenjie Ma, Jingxuan He, Charlie Snell, Tyler Griggs, Sewon Min, and Matei Zaharia. Reasoning models can be effective without thinking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09858, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Cand \` e s, and Tatsunori Hashimoto

    Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei - Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel J. Cand \` e s, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. s1: Simple test-time scaling. CoRR, abs/2501.19393, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2501.19393. URL https://...

    2025 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    Token-budget-aware LLM reasoning

    Tingxu Han, Zhenting Wang, Chunrong Fang, Shiyu Zhao, Shiqing Ma, and Zhenyu Chen. Token-budget-aware LLM reasoning. CoRR, abs/2412.18547, 2024. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2412.18547. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.18547

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    Aytes, Jinheon Baek, and Sung Ju Hwang

    Simon A. Aytes, Jinheon Baek, and Sung Ju Hwang. Sketch-of-thought: Efficient LLM reasoning with adaptive cognitive-inspired sketching. CoRR, abs/2503.05179, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2503.05179. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.05179

    2025 doi

  41. [49]

    Lightthinker: Thinking step-by-step compression

    Jintian Zhang, Yuqi Zhu, Mengshu Sun, Yujie Luo, Shuofei Qiao, Lun Du, Da Zheng, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. Lightthinker: Thinking step-by-step compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15589, 2025 b

    2025

  42. [50]

    Seal: Steerable reasoning calibration of large language models for free

    Runjin Chen, Zhenyu Zhang, Junyuan Hong, Souvik Kundu, and Zhangyang Wang. Seal: Steerable reasoning calibration of large language models for free. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07986, 2025 b

    2025

  43. [51]

    thought

    Hannah Cyberey and David Evans. Steering the censorship: Uncovering representation vectors for llm" thought" control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17130, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Thinkedit: Interpretable weight editing to mitigate overly short thinking in reasoning models

    Chung-En Sun, Ge Yan, and Tsui-Wei Weng. Thinkedit: Interpretable weight editing to mitigate overly short thinking in reasoning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22048, 2025

    2025

  45. [53]

    LIMO: less is more for reasoning

    Yixin Ye, Zhen Huang, Yang Xiao, Ethan Chern, Shijie Xia, and Pengfei Liu. LIMO: less is more for reasoning. CoRR, abs/2502.03387, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2502.03387. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.03387

    2025 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    L1: controlling how long A reasoning model thinks with reinforcement learning

    Pranjal Aggarwal and Sean Welleck. L1: controlling how long A reasoning model thinks with reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/2503.04697, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2503.04697. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.04697

    2025 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space

    Shibo Hao, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, DiJia Su, Xian Li, Zhiting Hu, Jason Weston, and Yuandong Tian. Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space. CoRR, abs/2412.06769, 2024. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2412.06769. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.06769

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    C3po: Critical-layer, core-expert, collaborative pathway optimization for test-time expert re-mixing

    Zhongyang Li, Ziyue Li, and Tianyi Zhou. C3po: Critical-layer, core-expert, collaborative pathway optimization for test-time expert re-mixing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07964, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Unveiling hidden collaboration within mixture-of-experts in large language models

    Yuanbo Tang, Yan Tang, Naifan Zhang, Meixuan Chen, and Yang Li. Unveiling hidden collaboration within mixture-of-experts in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12359, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  51. [59]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  52. [60]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

  53. [61]

    Qwen2 technical report. 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    Phi-3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone

    Marah Abdin, Sam Ade Jacobs, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Jyoti Aneja, Ahmed Awadallah, Hany Awadalla, Nguyen Bach, Amit Bahree, Arash Bakhtiari, Harkirat Behl, et al. Phi-3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14219, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Coig-cqia: Quality is all you need for chinese instruction fine-tuning

    Yuelin Bai, Xinrun Du, Yiming Liang, Yonggang Jin, Ziqiang Liu, Junting Zhou, Tianyu Zheng, Xincheng Zhang, Nuo Ma, Zekun Wang, et al. Coig-cqia: Quality is all you need for chinese instruction fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18058, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Comprehensive exploration of synthetic data generation: A survey

    Andr \'e Bauer, Simon Trapp, Michael Stenger, Robert Leppich, Samuel Kounev, Mark Leznik, Kyle Chard, and Ian Foster. Comprehensive exploration of synthetic data generation: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02524, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Deepseek llm: Scaling open-source language models with longtermism

    Xiao Bi, Deli Chen, Guanting Chen, Shanhuang Chen, Damai Dai, Chengqi Deng, Honghui Ding, Kai Dong, Qiushi Du, Zhe Fu, et al. Deepseek llm: Scaling open-source language models with longtermism. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02954, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    On the resemblance and containment of documents

    Andrei Z Broder. On the resemblance and containment of documents. In Proceedings. Compression and Complexity of SEQUENCES 1997 (Cat. No. 97TB100171), pp.\ 21--29. IEEE, 1997

    1997

  60. [68]

    Large language models as tool makers

    Tianle Cai, Xuezhi Wang, Tengyu Ma, Xinyun Chen, and Denny Zhou. Large language models as tool makers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17126, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    On the possibilities of ai-generated text detection

    Souradip Chakraborty, Amrit Singh Bedi, Sicheng Zhu, Bang An, Dinesh Manocha, and Furong Huang. On the possibilities of ai-generated text detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04736, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks

    Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W Cohen. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12588, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Picle: Eliciting diverse behaviors from large language models with persona in-context learning

    Hyeong Kyu Choi and Yixuan Li. Picle: Eliciting diverse behaviors from large language models with persona in-context learning. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

    Redpajama: an open dataset for training large language models, 2023

    Together Computer. Redpajama: an open dataset for training large language models, 2023. URL https://github.com/togethercomputer/RedPajama-Data

    2023

  65. [73]

    Language modeling is compression

    Gr \'e goire Del \'e tang, Anian Ruoss, Paul-Ambroise Duquenne, Elliot Catt, Tim Genewein, Christopher Mattern, Jordi Grau-Moya, Li Kevin Wenliang, Matthew Aitchison, Laurent Orseau, et al. Language modeling is compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10668, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    A tale of tails: Model collapse as a change of scaling laws

    Elvis Dohmatob, Yunzhen Feng, Pu Yang, Francois Charton, and Julia Kempe. A tale of tails: Model collapse as a change of scaling laws. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07043, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Strategic reasoning with language models

    Kanishk Gandhi, Dorsa Sadigh, and Noah D Goodman. Strategic reasoning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19165, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    In-context autoencoder for context compression in a large language model

    Tao Ge, Hu Jing, Lei Wang, Xun Wang, Si-Qing Chen, and Furu Wei. In-context autoencoder for context compression in a large language model. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=uREj4ZuGJE

    2024

  69. [77]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Key-point-driven data synthesis with its enhancement on mathematical reasoning

    Yiming Huang, Xiao Liu, Yeyun Gong, Zhibin Gou, Yelong Shen, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. Key-point-driven data synthesis with its enhancement on mathematical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02333, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Faithful persona-based conversational dataset generation with large language models

    Pegah Jandaghi, XiangHai Sheng, Xinyi Bai, Jay Pujara, and Hakim Sidahmed. Faithful persona-based conversational dataset generation with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10007, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Scaling laws for neural language models

    Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361, 2020

    2001 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Common 7b language models already possess strong math capabilities

    Chen Li, Weiqi Wang, Jingcheng Hu, Yixuan Wei, Nanning Zheng, Han Hu, Zheng Zhang, and Houwen Peng. Common 7b language models already possess strong math capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04706, 2024 a

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Synthetic data (almost) from scratch: Generalized instruction tuning for language models

    Haoran Li, Qingxiu Dong, Zhengyang Tang, Chaojun Wang, Xingxing Zhang, Haoyang Huang, Shaohan Huang, Xiaolong Huang, Zeqiang Huang, Dongdong Zhang, et al. Synthetic data (almost) from scratch: Generalized instruction tuning for language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13064, 2024 b

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas

    Junyi Li, Ninareh Mehrabi, Charith Peris, Palash Goyal, Kai-Wei Chang, Aram Galstyan, Richard Zemel, and Rahul Gupta. On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04978, 2023 a

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Textbooks are all you need ii: phi-1.5 technical report

    Yuanzhi Li, S \'e bastien Bubeck, Ronen Eldan, Allie Del Giorno, Suriya Gunasekar, and Yin Tat Lee. Textbooks are all you need ii: phi-1.5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05463, 2023 b

    2023 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Best practices and lessons learned on synthetic data for language models

    Ruibo Liu, Jerry Wei, Fangyu Liu, Chenglei Si, Yanzhe Zhang, Jinmeng Rao, Steven Zheng, Daiyi Peng, Diyi Yang, Denny Zhou, et al. Best practices and lessons learned on synthetic data for language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07503, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Dynamic llm-agent network: An llm-agent collaboration framework with agent team optimization

    Zijun Liu, Yanzhe Zhang, Peng Li, Yang Liu, and Diyi Yang. Dynamic llm-agent network: An llm-agent collaboration framework with agent team optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02170, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Rephrasing the web: A recipe for compute and data-efficient language modeling

    Pratyush Maini, Skyler Seto, He Bai, David Grangier, Yizhe Zhang, and Navdeep Jaitly. Rephrasing the web: A recipe for compute and data-efficient language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16380, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    On the risk of misinformation pollution with large language models

    Yikang Pan, Liangming Pan, Wenhu Chen, Preslav Nakov, Min-Yen Kan, and William Yang Wang. On the risk of misinformation pollution with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13661, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph O'Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp.\ 1--22, 2023

    2023

  82. [90]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dess \` , Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  83. [91]

    Role play with large language models

    Murray Shanahan, Kyle McDonell, and Laria Reynolds. Role play with large language models. Nature, 623 0 (7987): 0 493--498, 2023

    2023

  84. [92]

    The curse of recursion: Training on generated data makes models forget

    Ilia Shumailov, Zakhar Shumaylov, Yiren Zhao, Yarin Gal, Nicolas Papernot, and Ross Anderson. The curse of recursion: Training on generated data makes models forget. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17493, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Introducing qwen1.5, February 2024

    Qwen Team. Introducing qwen1.5, February 2024. URL https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen1.5/

    2024

  86. [94]

    An experimental study of the small world problem

    Jeffrey Travers and Stanley Milgram. An experimental study of the small world problem. In Social networks, pp.\ 179--197. Elsevier, 1977

    1977

  87. [95]

    Position: Will we run out of data? limits of llm scaling based on human-generated data

    Pablo Villalobos, Anson Ho, Jaime Sevilla, Tamay Besiroglu, Lennart Heim, and Marius Hobbhahn. Position: Will we run out of data? limits of llm scaling based on human-generated data. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  88. [96]

    Mathcoder: Seamless code integration in llms for enhanced mathematical reasoning

    Ke Wang, Houxing Ren, Aojun Zhou, Zimu Lu, Sichun Luo, Weikang Shi, Renrui Zhang, Linqi Song, Mingjie Zhan, and Hongsheng Li. Mathcoder: Seamless code integration in llms for enhanced mathematical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03731, 2023

    arXiv

  89. [97]

    Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instructions

    Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10560, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Unleashing the emergent cognitive synergy in large language models: A task-solving agent through multi-persona self-collaboration

    Zhenhailong Wang, Shaoguang Mao, Wenshan Wu, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, and Heng Ji. Unleashing the emergent cognitive synergy in large language models: A task-solving agent through multi-persona self-collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of...

    2024

  91. [99]

    Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limitation of large language models

    Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, and Mohan Kankanhalli. Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limitation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.11817, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Yi: Open foundation models by 01

    Alex Young, Bei Chen, Chao Li, Chengen Huang, Ge Zhang, Guanwei Zhang, Heng Li, Jiangcheng Zhu, Jianqun Chen, Jing Chang, et al. Yi: Open foundation models by 01. ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04652, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models

    Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12284, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Llm as a mastermind: A survey of strategic reasoning with large language models

    Yadong Zhang, Shaoguang Mao, Tao Ge, Xun Wang, Adrian de Wynter, Yan Xia, Wenshan Wu, Ting Song, Man Lan, and Furu Wei. Llm as a mastermind: A survey of strategic reasoning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01230, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Wildchat: 1m chat GPT interaction logs in the wild

    Wenting Zhao, Xiang Ren, Jack Hessel, Claire Cardie, Yejin Choi, and Yuntian Deng. Wildchat: 1m chat GPT interaction logs in the wild. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Bl8u7ZRlbM

    2024

  96. [104]

    Deepseek-coder-v2: Breaking the barrier of closed-source models in code intelligence

    Qihao Zhu, Daya Guo, Zhihong Shao, Dejian Yang, Peiyi Wang, Runxin Xu, Y Wu, Yukun Li, Huazuo Gao, Shirong Ma, et al. Deepseek-coder-v2: Breaking the barrier of closed-source models in code intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11931, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.