Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 85 references

SituatedThinker: Grounding LLM Reasoning with Real-World through Situated Thinking

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 SITUATEDTHINKER claims that RL over two interfaces—retrieval and code execution—yields a transferable policy for deciding when to query knowledge graphs, tables, and text-game environments.

desk verdict Solid empirical extension of RL-for-tool-use: the two-interface training and zero-shot transfer to unseen interfaces is real and worth referee time, but the paper does not isolate that mechanism from generic RL gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19300 v1 pith:TIWMA3IS submitted 2025-05-25 cs.CL

Junnan Liu , Linhao Luo , Thuy-Trang Vu , Gholamreza Haffari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords situatedthinkinggroundedreasoningreinforcementlearningtooluseretrieval-augmentedgenerationcodeexecutionmulti-hopquestionansweringtext-basedgames
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

SITUATEDTHINKER claims that a language model can learn a transferable situated-thinking habit, deciding when to reason internally and when to query an external environment, by training with reinforcement learning on just two tasks (multi-hop question answering and mathematics) and two interfaces (information retrieval and code execution). The paper argues that this policy transfers to unseen environments, including knowledge graphs, tables, and text-based games, where the model must use novel interfaces it never saw during training. If correct, it means a small amount of reward-based training over a generic interface template is enough to teach a model when and how to ground its reasoning in real-world feedback, rather than needing task-specific tool-calling data. The authors report large gains over retrieval-augmented and search-reasoning baselines on multi-hop QA and math benchmarks, plus strong zero-adaptation results on out-of-domain tasks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the interface template plus an RL update derived from group-relative policy optimization with asymmetric clipping bounds and no KL penalty. The universal template, a short textual block containing Name, Description, Query Format, and Invoke Limit, is the only description a model sees about a new environment. The RL objective, which rewards only the correctness of the final answer, is what incentivizes the model to explore interface calls, absorb feedback, and reflect; together, these pieces convert answer accuracy into a learned policy for deciding when internal knowledge is insufficient and how to parse the feedback that comes back.

What would settle it

Take a SITUATEDTHINKER model trained on retrieval and code, then evaluate it on WebQSP, WTQ, or TextWorld with the interface names and descriptions replaced by random tokens while keeping the query formats intact. If accuracy does not drop relative to the intact descriptions, the model is not using the template's semantics, and the claim of generalizable situated thinking would be an artifact of task similarity rather than interface understanding.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that deliberate reasoning with the external world can be learned as a general capability. SITUATEDTHINKER treats every external environment through a uniform interface template, name, description, query format, and invoke limit, and lets the model freely interleave internal chain-of-thought steps with situated actions that query the environment and receive feedback. Training uses group-relative policy optimization with a rule-based reward that only checks whether the final answer is correct and properly formatted, with no reward for calling interfaces; nevertheless the model learns to invoke retrieval and code execution, to reflect on errors, and to recover from failed queries. Evaluated on four multi-hop QA benchmarks and three math benchmarks, the trained 8B and 14B models outperform prior search-augmented RL models, and on unseen tasks (MedQA, GPQA, WebQSP, WTQ, TextWorld) they outperform both the base models and models given the same interfaces without RL training. The strongest claimed result is that the interface-use policy transfers across tool types: a model trained only with retrieval and code execution can operate knowledge-graph, table, and game interfaces.

Load-bearing premise

The whole transfer claim rests on the assumption that a short textual template, name, description, query format, and invoke limit, is enough for a model trained on retrieval and code to understand and use any new interface.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single answer-only reward is enough to elicit interface invocation and reflection, so no tool-use annotations are required.
  • A model trained with two interfaces can be deployed on new, text-described interfaces without gradient updates.
  • The policy generalizes across domains, such as medical and scientific questions, as well as across interface types, such as knowledge graphs, tables, and games.
  • Multi-interface reasoning outperforms single-interface search-RL methods at matched model size.
  • The learned behavior includes error recovery and verification, not just retrieval, which goes beyond fixed retrieval workflows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is that the same recipe could train on three or four interfaces instead of two; the observed transfer suggests the policy learns a general protocol for reading interface descriptions, so adding one more interface type in training might further widen the set of unseen environments it can handle.
  • The paper's evidence is confined to textual, deterministic tasks, so treating real-world grounding as general across multimodal or open-ended environments goes beyond what is shown; a test of that stronger version would be to present the model with an image-derived or non-English interface and check whether the same template still carries transfer.
  • The 14B model's tendency to invoke code more and retrieval less than the 8B model hints that the learned policy depends on the model's internal knowledge capacity, which suggests invoke limits should be tuned per model size even though the paper does not make that recommendation.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SITUATEDTHINKER, an RL training framework that augments LLM long-chain-of-thought reasoning with externally invocable interfaces. It defines a universal interface template (name, description, query format, invoke limit), trains Qwen3-8B-Base and Qwen3-14B-Base with GRPO on MuSiQue multi-hop QA and Big-Math problems using retrieval and code-execution interfaces, and evaluates on four multi-hop QA benchmarks, three math benchmarks, and five out-of-domain environments (MedQA, GPQA, WebQSP, WTQ, TextWorld). The main claims are that the resulting models improve on in-domain tasks and, without further training, generalize across domains and to new task/interface types, including knowledge graphs, tables, and text games, thereby learning a transferable situated-thinking policy.

Significance. If the reported generalization holds, the core contribution is valuable: it suggests RL over just two interfaces and two task families can teach a base model to interpret and use previously unseen text-described interfaces, with potential applications to grounded reasoning, tool use, and embodied agents. The paper makes several concrete assets public: the universal interface template, training and evaluation details, interface definitions for five environments, and a code repository. The case studies are helpful evidence of retrieval, code execution, and reflection behaviors. However, the absence of same-recipe RL controls and the reliance on borrowed baseline numbers mean the distinctive mechanism (transferable interface-use policy) is not yet isolated from generic RL-driven reasoning gains.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, Table 3; §2.2.3 Eq. (1)] The central claim that RL over retrieval and code interfaces produces a transferable interface-use policy is not isolated from a generic RL-reasoning effect. The reward in Eq. (1) is a function only of format and final-answer correctness; interface invocation is never directly rewarded. The only RL-trained comparators, ReSearch and Search-R1, are borrowed from other papers with different training recipes, and the 'Base LLMs + Interfaces' rows in Table 3 are not RL-trained. Consequently, the large gains on MedQA, GPQA, WTQ, and TextWorld could in principle come from GRPO-induced improvements in long-CoT reasoning, format compliance, or reflection rather than from learning to generalize the interface template. Please run the identical GRPO setup with (a) no interfaces in the system prompt, (b) retrieval only, and (c) code only, and report all five out-of-domain benchmarks; this is the minimal experiment needed to attribute the gains to situated thinking.
  2. [§3.2, Table 1 and §3.4, Table 3] The evaluation mixes numbers generated in this paper with numbers borrowed from ReSearch and Search-R1, yet §3.2 first states that 'All baselines are implemented' and then says results are borrowed for methods that are challenging to reproduce. Because retrieval corpora, prompts, training data, and decoding settings differ across papers, the headline comparisons are not controlled. The absence of confidence intervals or significance tests is especially problematic on small test sets such as GPQA (198 questions) and TextWorld (50 games), where a single run can move the reported rates by several points. Please either run the baselines under the same pipeline or clearly separate borrowed numbers, and provide variance estimates or significance tests for all new numbers.
  3. [§3.4, Table 3 and §A.4] The cross-interface generalization evidence is final-answer accuracy only. There is no quantitative reporting of whether SITUATEDTHINKER actually invokes the unseen KBQA, table, and game interfaces, whether queries are well-formed, how often feedback is used to correct an error, or how invocation frequency compares with the interface-enhanced base models. This matters because Table 3 shows that simply attaching the interface template to an untrained base model is sometimes harmful (e.g., 8B WebQSP drops from 41.7 to 22.1 when interfaces are added), so aggregate accuracy alone does not reveal what the RL model learned about interface use. The case studies in §B.5–B.7 show examples but do not establish systematic behavior. Please report process-level statistics for the out-of-domain benchmark runs.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§A.5] The TextWorld interface list contains a duplicate 'Obtaining Description Interface' entry, and the tag spellings are inconsistent: the error message in Case B.7 uses '<dadmissiblecommand>' while the interface definition uses '<admissiblecommand>', and '<possibleadmissiblecommand>' appears as '<possibledadmissiblecommand>' in the interface box. Please unify these tags.
  2. [Case B.3 and Case B.4] Several malformed tags appear in the case studies, including '</conslusion>', '<conculsion>', and 'backslashboxed' instead of '\boxed'. These typos make the evidence harder to read and should be corrected.
  3. [§3.2 and Table 1] The sentence 'We first evaluate SITUATEDTHINKERon test the split of four multi-hop question-answering benchmarks' contains a typo, and Table 1's rows for 'w/o RAG' and 'Naive RAG' do not show method labels because the model-size symbols are not rendered. Please fix the table formatting.
  4. [§3.5, Figure 2] The metrics 'Reflection Score' and 'Invoke Error Penalty' are plotted but never defined in the text or caption. Please provide precise definitions so the training-dynamics claims are checkable.
  5. [§2.2.3] The sentence 'the model learned to invoke the interface correctly solely through the reward of answer correctness verification' would be more convincing if supported by aggregate invocation statistics during training rather than only the curves in Figure 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical RL training recipe evaluated on external held-out benchmarks; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and there are no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

SITUATEDTHINKER's derivation chain is an empirical RL training recipe, not a deductive argument, and its claims are benchmarked against external held-out data. The training reward (Eq. 1) scores only format correctness and final-answer correctness; interface invocation carries no explicit reward, so the observation that the model 'learned to invoke the interface correctly solely through the reward of answer correctness verification' (Sec. 2.2.3) is an emergent empirical finding, not a fitted input renamed as a result. No parameter is fitted to the evaluation benchmarks (HotpotQA, 2WikiMultihop, Bamboogle, AIME24/25, MATH500, MedQA, GPQA, WebQSP, WTQ, TextWorld): training uses the MuSiQue train split plus 10,000 Big-Math samples, and the reported numbers are measured on held-out or entirely different datasets, so no 'prediction' reduces to a training quantity by construction. The interface template (Name, Description, Query Format, Invoke Limit, Sec. 2.1) is the paper's own design; the reference list contains no paper by the present authors, so there is no load-bearing self-citation and no author-imported uniqueness theorem. GRPO is cited to external DeepSeekMath [35] and the clipping scheme to DAPO [55]. The nearest concerns are non-circular: (i) the absence of a same-recipe no-interface or single-interface RL control (Sec. 3.4, Table 3) leaves open that some cross-task gains come from general long-CoT RL improvements rather than from a transferable interface-use policy, which is an attribution or confound concern, but the Table 3 accuracies are externally determined (e.g., 8B base+interfaces 35.7 vs 68.9 with SITUATEDTHINKER on WTQ) and do not reduce to Eq. (1) by definition; and (ii) the 'knowledge boundary perception' claim (Sec. 3.6) is a post-hoc reading of case-study utterances, which is interpretive bias rather than circular derivation. Section C's limitations (text-only, English-only, deterministic tasks) are scope constraints, not admissions of circularity. Because the generalization evidence comes from running the trained policy on held-out environments with novel interface tags, and the outcome metric (answer accuracy, hits@1, pass rate) is independent of the training objective's fitted quantities, the derivation chain is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on a small number of hand-set hyperparameters and on three domain assumptions about interface universality, task representativeness, and the adequacy of a static knowledge base. These are not fitted to data in the derivation sense, but they are choices that materially affect the empirical outcome. The most important is the interface-template universality assumption, which underpins the headline generalization results.

free parameters (4)
  • epsilon_min / epsilon_max clipping bounds = 0.2 / 0.28
    Asymmetric clipping in Eq. 3, adopted from DAPO [55] to encourage exploration; these values are hand-set and affect the magnitude of updates.
  • Interface invoke limits = 5 (retrieval/code), 10 (KG/table), 50 (game)
    Hand-chosen caps on interface calls; they bound trajectory length and interaction budget, and therefore influence what the model can learn and how it behaves on new interfaces.
  • Format penalty in reward = -0.1
    The reward in Eq. 1 penalizes trajectories with incorrect format and wrong answer; the specific value is hand-chosen and shapes behavior.
  • BigMath difficulty mix = 1:1:8 (easy:medium:hard)
    The training subset in Section A.2 selects easy, medium, and hard BigMath questions in a 1:1:8 ratio; this ad hoc choice emphasizes hard problems and shapes the training distribution.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The textual interface template fully specifies how to interact with an external world.
    Section 2.1 defines interfaces solely as Name, Description, Query Format, and Invoke Limit; the generalization experiments in Section 3.4 rely on this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Multi-hop QA and math reasoning are representative training tasks that teach a general situated-thinking capability.
    Only these two tasks are used for RL training (Section 3.1); the claim that the resulting behavior transfers to other task families depends on this non-obvious premise.
  • domain assumption A static Wikipedia 2018 dump is an adequate external knowledge source for question answering.
    The retrieval interface uses the DPR Wikipedia index (Section 3.1), but some benchmark questions, such as the East Timor president case, depend on temporal facts; the paper does not address retrieval coverage or freshness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SituatedThinker: Grounding LLM Reasoning with Real-World through Situated Thinking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TIWMA3IS

@misc{pith2026250519300,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SituatedThinker: Grounding LLM Reasoning with Real-World through Situated Thinking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TIWMA3IS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19300}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) demonstrate their impressive reasoning capabilities. However, the reasoning confined to internal parametric space limits LLMs' access to real-time information and understanding of the physical world. To overcome this constraint, we introduce SituatedThinker, a novel framework that enables LLMs to ground their reasoning in real-world contexts through situated thinking, which adaptively combines both internal knowledge and external information with predefined interfaces. By utilizing reinforcement learning, SituatedThinker incentivizes deliberate reasoning with the real world to acquire information and feedback, allowing LLMs to surpass their knowledge boundaries and enhance reasoning. Experimental results demonstrate significant performance improvements on multi-hop question-answering and mathematical reasoning benchmarks. Furthermore, SituatedThinker demonstrates strong performance on unseen tasks, such as KBQA, TableQA, and text-based games, showcasing the generalizable real-world grounded reasoning capability. Our codes are available at https://github.com/jnanliu/SituatedThinker.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19300 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The framework of SITUATEDTHINKER, where LLMs take questions and predefined interfaces as inputs. Then, they conduct situated thinking to adaptively combine basic reasoning with internal action and external reasoning while performing situated actions through the interfaces. The final conclusion is obtained through a deliberate reasoning process and verified to optimize models with reinforcement learning. External wor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of training dynamics of SITUATEDTHINKER. The x-axis indicates the training steps and the y-axis means the observation metrics. 3.5 Analysis on Training Dynamics In this section, we will explore what the model has learned through GRPO by analyzing the training dynamics. The key training dynamics are detailed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Large language models for mathematical reasoning: Progresses and challenges

    Janice Ahn, Rishu Verma, Renze Lou, Di Liu, Rui Zhang, and Wenpeng Yin. Large language models for mathematical reasoning: Progresses and challenges. InEACL (Student Research Workshop), pages 225–237. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024. 1

    2024

  2. [2]

    Big-math: A large-scale, high-quality math dataset for reinforcement learning in language models.CoRR, abs/2502.17387, 2025

    Alon Albalak, Duy Phung, Nathan Lile, Rafael Rafailov, Kanishk Gandhi, Louis Castricato, Anikait Singh, Chase Blagden, Violet Xiang, Dakota Mahan, and Nick Haber. Big-math: A large-scale, high-quality math dataset for reinforcement learning in language models.CoRR, abs/2502.17387, 2025. 3.1, A.2

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Do chains-of-thoughts of large language models suffer from hallucinations, cognitive biases, or phobias in bayesian reasoning?CoRR, abs/2503.15268, 2025

    Roberto Araya. Do chains-of-thoughts of large language models suffer from hallucinations, cognitive biases, or phobias in bayesian reasoning?CoRR, abs/2503.15268, 2025. 1

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Openai gym.CoRR, abs/1606.01540, 2016

    Greg Brockman, Vicki Cheung, Ludwig Pettersson, Jonas Schneider, John Schulman, Jie Tang, and Wojciech Zaremba. Openai gym.CoRR, abs/1606.01540, 2016. A.4

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Pan, Wen Zhang, Huajun Chen, Fan Yang, Zenan Zhou, and Weipeng Chen

    Mingyang Chen, Tianpeng Li, Haoze Sun, Yijie Zhou, Chenzheng Zhu, Haofen Wang, Jeff Z. Pan, Wen Zhang, Huajun Chen, Fan Yang, Zenan Zhou, and Weipeng Chen. Research: Learning to reason with search for llms via reinforcement learning.CoRR, abs/2503.19470, 2025. 3.2, 4

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Towards reasoning era: A survey of long chain-of-thought for reasoning large language models.CoRR, abs/2503.09567, 2025

    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.CoRR, abs/2503.09567, 2025. 1

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Hausknecht, Layla El Asri, Mahmoud Adada, Wendy Tay, and Adam Trischler

    Marc-Alexandre Côté, Ákos Kádár, Xingdi Yuan, Ben Kybartas, Tavian Barnes, Emery Fine, James Moore, Matthew J. Hausknecht, Layla El Asri, Mahmoud Adada, Wendy Tay, and Adam Trischler. Textworld: A learning environment for text-based games. InCGW@IJCAI, volume 1017 ofCommunications in Computer and Information Science, pages 41–75. Springer, 2018. 3.4, A.4

    2018

  8. [8]

    Process reinforcement through implicit rewards.CoRR, abs/2502.01456, 2025

    Ganqu Cui, Lifan Yuan, Zefan Wang, Hanbin Wang, Wendi Li, Bingxiang He, Yuchen Fan, Tianyu Yu, Qixin Xu, Weize Chen, Jiarui Yuan, Huayu Chen, Kaiyan Zhang, Xingtai Lv, Shuo Wang, Yuan Yao, Xu Han, Hao Peng, Yu Cheng, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Bowen Zhou, and Ning Ding. Process reinforcement through implicit rewards.CoRR, abs/2502.01456, 2025. 3.3

    arXiv 2025

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    DeepSeek-AI, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, Xiaokang Zhang, Xingkai Yu, Yu Wu, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Zhuoshu Li, Ziyi Gao, Aixin Liu, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Bei F...

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    How far are we from agi: Are llms all we need?Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024

    Tao Feng, Chuanyang Jin, Jingyu Liu, Kunlun Zhu, Haoqin Tu, Zirui Cheng, Guanyu Lin, and Jiaxuan You. How far are we from agi: Are llms all we need?Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024. 1

    2024

  3. [11]

    CRITIC: large language models can self-correct with tool-interactive critiquing

    Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Yujiu Yang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. CRITIC: large language models can self-correct with tool-interactive critiquing. InICLR. OpenReview.net, 2024. 4

    2024

  4. [12]

    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. InNeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks, 2021. 3.3 10

    2021

  5. [13]

    Constructing A multi-hop QA dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps

    Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. Constructing A multi-hop QA dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps. InCOLING, pages 6609–6625. International Committee on Computational Linguistics, 2020. 3.2

    2020

  6. [14]

    Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey

    Jie Huang and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey. InACL (Findings), pages 1049–1065. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023. 1

    2023

  7. [15]

    Search- r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning.CoRR, abs/2503.09516, 2025

    Bowen Jin, Hansi Zeng, Zhenrui Yue, Dong Wang, Hamed Zamani, and Jiawei Han. Search- r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning.CoRR, abs/2503.09516, 2025. 1, 3.2, 4

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    What disease does this patient have? A large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams.CoRR, abs/2009.13081, 2020

    Di Jin, Eileen Pan, Nassim Oufattole, Wei-Hung Weng, Hanyi Fang, and Peter Szolovits. What disease does this patient have? A large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams.CoRR, abs/2009.13081, 2020. 3.4, A.4

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. InEMNLP, pages 6769–6781. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020. 3.1

    2020

  10. [18]

    Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. InSOSP, pages 611–626. ACM, 2023. A.3

    2023

  11. [19]

    Torl: Scaling tool-integrated RL.CoRR, abs/2503.23383, 2025

    Xuefeng Li, Haoyang Zou, and Pengfei Liu. Torl: Scaling tool-integrated RL.CoRR, abs/2503.23383, 2025. 3.3, 4

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Let’s verify step by step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step. InICLR. OpenReview.net, 2024. 3.3

    2024

  13. [21]

    Candès, and Tatsunori Hashimoto

    Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel J. Candès, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. s1: Simple test-time scaling.CoRR, abs/2501.19393, 2025. 1

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Learning to reason with llms

    OpenAI. Learning to reason with llms. https://openai.com/index/ learning-to-reason-with-llms/, 2024. Accessed: 2024-09-12. 1

    2024

  15. [23]

    Introducing deep research

    OpenAI. Introducing deep research. https://openai.com/index/ introducing-deep-research/, 2025. Accessed: 2025-02-02. 4

    2025

  16. [24]

    Compositional semantic parsing on semi-structured tables

    Panupong Pasupat and Percy Liang. Compositional semantic parsing on semi-structured tables. InACL (1), pages 1470–1480. The Association for Computer Linguistics, 2015. 3.4, A.4

    2015

  17. [25]

    Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Köpf, Edward Z. Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, ...

    2019

  18. [26]

    Smith, and Mike Lewis

    Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A. Smith, and Mike Lewis. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models. InEMNLP (Findings), pages 5687–5711. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023. 3.2

    2023

  19. [27]

    Toolllm: Facilitating large language models to master 16000+ real-world apis

    Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, Sihan Zhao, Lauren Hong, Runchu Tian, Ruobing Xie, Jie Zhou, Mark Gerstein, Dahai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Toolllm: Facilitating large language models to m...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Yujia Qin, Shengding Hu, Yankai Lin, Weize Chen, Ning Ding, Ganqu Cui, Zheni Zeng, Xuanhe Zhou, Yufei Huang, Chaojun Xiao, Chi Han, Yi R. Fung, Yusheng Su, Huadong Wang, Cheng Qian, Runchu Tian, Kunlun Zhu, Shihao Liang, Xingyu Shen, Bokai Xu, Zhen Zhang, Yining Ye, Bowen Li, ...

    2025

  21. [29]

    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.CoRR, abs/2311.12022, 2023. 3.4, A.4

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Investigating the factual knowledge boundary of large language models with retrieval augmentation

    Ruiyang Ren, Yuhao Wang, Yingqi Qu, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jing Liu, Hua Wu, Ji-Rong Wen, and Haifeng Wang. Investigating the factual knowledge boundary of large language models with retrieval augmentation. InProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguisti...

    2025

  23. [31]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. InNeurIPS, 2023. 4

    2023

  24. [32]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 68539–68551, 2023

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, 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: 68539–68551, 2023. 1

    2023

  25. [33]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms.CoRR, abs/1707.06347, 2017

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.CoRR, abs/1707.06347, 2017. 1

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Enhancing retrieval-augmented large language models with iterative retrieval-generation synergy

    Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. Enhancing retrieval-augmented large language models with iterative retrieval-generation synergy. InEMNLP (Findings), pages 9248–9274. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023. 3.2

    2023

  27. [35]

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Mingchuan Zhang, Y . K. Li, Y . Wu, and Daya Guo. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.CoRR, abs/2402.03300, 2024. 1, 2.2.4

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient RLHF framework

    Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient RLHF framework. In EuroSys, pages 1279–1297. ACM, 2025. A.3

    2025

  29. [37]

    Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models

    Ishika Singh, Valts Blukis, Arsalan Mousavian, Ankit Goyal, Danfei Xu, Jonathan Tremblay, Dieter Fox, Jesse Thomason, and Animesh Garg. Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Scaling LLM test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters.CoRR, abs/2408.03314, 2024

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling LLM test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters.CoRR, abs/2408.03314, 2024. 1, 3.5

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Sadler, Jiaman Wu, Wei-Lun Chao, Clayton Washington, and Yu Su

    Chan Hee Song, Brian M. Sadler, Jiaman Wu, Wei-Lun Chao, Clayton Washington, and Yu Su. Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models. In ICCV, pages 2986–2997. IEEE, 2023. 1

    2023

  32. [40]

    R1-searcher: Incentivizing the search capability in llms via reinforcement learning.CoRR, abs/2503.05592, 2025

    Huatong Song, Jinhao Jiang, Yingqian Min, Jie Chen, Zhipeng Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Lei Fang, and Ji-Rong Wen. R1-searcher: Incentivizing the search capability in llms via reinforcement learning.CoRR, abs/2503.05592, 2025. 1, 2.2.3, 4

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A survey of reasoning with foundation models: Concepts, methodologies, and outlook.ACM Comput

    Jiankai Sun, Chuanyang Zheng, Enze Xie, Zhengying Liu, Ruihang Chu, Jianing Qiu, Jiaqi Xu, Mingyu Ding, Hongyang Li, Mengzhe Geng, Yue Wu, Wenhai Wang, Junsong Chen, Zhangyue Yin, Xiaozhe Ren, Jie Fu, Junxian He, Wu Yuan, Qi Liu, Xihui Liu, Yu Li, Hao Dong, Yu Cheng, Ming Zhan...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Qwen3: Think deeper, act faster

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

  35. [43]

    Musique: Multihop questions via single-hop question composition.Trans

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Musique: Multihop questions via single-hop question composition.Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 10:539–554, 2022. 3.1, 3.2, A.2

    2022

  36. [44]

    Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions. InACL (1), pages 10014–10037. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023. 3.2

    2023

  37. [45]

    Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1...

    2023

  38. [46]

    V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., 2024, 2024. 4

    2024

  39. [47]

    Srinivasa

    Yi Ru Wang, Jiafei Duan, Dieter Fox, and Siddhartha S. Srinivasa. NEWTON: are large language models capable of physical reasoning? InEMNLP (Findings), pages 9743–9758. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023. 1

    2023

  40. [48]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022. 2.1

    2022

  41. [49]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mari...

    2020

  42. [50]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for natural language processing: A survey.CoRR, abs/2407.13193, 2024

    Shangyu Wu, Ying Xiong, Yufei Cui, Haolun Wu, Can Chen, Ye Yuan, Lianming Huang, Xue Liu, Tei-Wei Kuo, Nan Guan, and Chun Jason Xue. Retrieval-augmented generation for natural language processing: A survey.CoRR, abs/2407.13193, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Qwen2.5-math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via self-improvement.CoRR, abs/2409.12122, 2024

    An Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bofei Gao, Bowen Yu, Chengpeng Li, Dayiheng Liu, Jianhong Tu, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Keming Lu, Mingfeng Xue, Runji Lin, Tianyu Liu, Xingzhang Ren, and Zhenru Zhang. Qwen2.5-math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via se...

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Cohen, Ruslan Salakhut- dinov, and Christopher D

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhut- dinov, and Christopher D. Manning. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. InEMNLP, pages 2369–2380. Association for Computational Linguistics,

  45. [53]

    Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InICLR. OpenReview.net,

  46. [54]

    The value of semantic parse labeling for knowledge base question answering

    Wen-tau Yih, Matthew Richardson, Christopher Meek, Ming-Wei Chang, and Jina Suh. The value of semantic parse labeling for knowledge base question answering. InACL. The Associa- tion for Computer Linguistics, 2016. 3.4, A.4

    2016

  47. [55]

    DAPO: an open-source LLM reinforcement learning system at scale.CoRR, abs/2503.14476, 2025

    Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, Yu Yue, Tiantian Fan, Gaohong Liu, Lingjun Liu, Xin Liu, Haibin Lin, Zhiqi Lin, Bole Ma, Guangming Sheng, Yuxuan Tong, Chi Zhang, Mofan Zhang, Wang Zhang, Hang Zhu, Jinhua Zhu, Jiaze Chen, Jiangjie Chen, Chengyi Wa...

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Simplerl-zoo: Investigating and taming zero reinforcement learning for open base models in the wild.CoRR, abs/2503.18892, 2025

    Weihao Zeng, Yuzhen Huang, Qian Liu, Wei Liu, Keqing He, Zejun Ma, and Junxian He. Simplerl-zoo: Investigating and taming zero reinforcement learning for open base models in the wild.CoRR, abs/2503.18892, 2025. 3.3 13 A More Implementation Details A.1 Training Parameters The h...

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-10-largest-states-in-the-united-states.html

    Identify the second largest state in the US by area. 2. Find the capital of that state. ### Step 1: Identify the Second Largest State in the US by Area First, we need to know the states ranked by their area. We can use the Code Execution interface to find this information. I’l...

  50. [58]

    - If the perimeter of the equilateral triangle is 21 inches, then the side lengthsof the triangle can be calculated as: s= perimeter 3 = 21 3 = 7inches

    Determine the side length of the equilateral triangle: - The perimeter of an equilateral triangle is the sum of the lengths of its three equal sides. - If the perimeter of the equilateral triangle is 21 inches, then the side lengthsof the triangle can be calculated as: s= peri...

  51. [59]

    - Therefore, the side length of the hexagon is also 7 inches

    Relate the side length of the triangle to the side length of the hexagon: - A regular hexagon can be divided into six equilateral triangles, and each side of the hexagon is equal to the side length of these triangles. - Therefore, the side length of the hexagon is also 7 inches

  52. [60]

    The correct treatment is {correct_treatment}, which is a {category}

    Calculate the perimeter of the regular hexagon: - A regular hexagon has six equal sides. - If the side length of the hexagon is 7 inches, then the perimeterPof the hexagon is: P= 6×s= 6×7 = 42inches Now, let’s confirm the calculation using the provided interfaces. <code> s = 2...

  53. [61]

    **Understanding the Problem**: We need to determine which planet has a higher probability of transiting its host star, given the information about their orbital periods and the masses/radii of their host stars. The probability of a transit is related to the inclination of the ...

  54. [62]

    - **Host Star Mass**: The host star of Planet_1 is twice as massive as that of Planet_2

    **Key Factors**: - **Orbital Period**: Planet_1 has an orbital period that is three times shorter than Planet_2. - **Host Star Mass**: The host star of Planet_1 is twice as massive as that of Planet_2. - **Host Star Radius**: Both host stars have the same radius

  55. [63]

    **Transit Probability**: The probability P of a transit is approximately the ratio of the star’s radiusR∗ to the semi-major axisaof the planet’s orbit: P≈ R∗ a For circular orbits, the semi-major axisacan be estimated using Kepler’s Third Law: a= GM∗P 2 4π2 !1/3 whereGis the g...

  56. [64]

    GivenP 1 = 1 3 P2

    **Comparing the Two Planets**: - LetP 1 andP 2 be the orbital periods of Planet_1 and Planet_2, respectively. GivenP 1 = 1 3 P2. - LetM ∗1 = 2M∗2 andR ∗1 =R ∗2 =R ∗

  57. [65]

    **Calculating the Semi-Major Axes**: - For Planet_1: a1 = GM∗1P 2 1 4π2 !1/3 = G·2M ∗2 · 1 3 P2 2 4π2 !1/3 - For Planet_2: a2 = GM∗2P 2 2 4π2 !1/3

  58. [66]

    **Simplifying the Ratio a1 a2 **: a1 a2 = 2M∗2 · 1 3 P2 2 M∗2P 2 2 !1/3 = 2 9 1/3 ≈0.66 So,a 1 ≈0.66a 2

  59. [67]

    **Calculating the Transit Probabilities**: - For Planet_1: P1 ≈ R∗ a1 ≈ R∗ 0.66a2 ≈1.52 R∗ a2 - For Planet_2: P2 ≈ R∗ a2 Therefore,P 1 ≈1.52P 2

  60. [68]

    This means Planet_1 is more likely to transit its host star

    **Interpreting the Results**: The transit probability of Planet_1 is approximately 1.52 times higher than that of Planet_2. This means Planet_1 is more likely to transit its host star

  61. [69]

    Let’s verify the calculations using Python to ensure accuracy

    **Matching with the Options**: The closest option to a 1.52 times higher probability is option A, which states that Planet_1 is preferred due to its 1.65 times higher probability to transit. Let’s verify the calculations using Python to ensure accuracy. <code> import math # Gi...

  62. [70]

    This will give me an overview of the information available about him

    First, I should find the neighboring relations of JaMarcus Russell. This will give me an overview of the information available about him. Query: <relation>JaMarcus Russell</relation> <result> [’sports.sports_team_roster.player’, ’com- mon.topic.notable_for’, ’education.educati...

  63. [71]

    Query: <entity>JaMarcus Russell, people.person.place_of_birth</entity> <result> [’Mobile’] </result> The result indicates that the place of birth for JaMarcus Russell is Mobile

    Next, I need to retrieve the entity associated with the relation ’people.person.place_of_birth’ for JaMarcus Russell. Query: <entity>JaMarcus Russell, people.person.place_of_birth</entity> <result> [’Mobile’] </result> The result indicates that the place of birth for JaMarcus ...

  64. [72]

    First, I need to find the neighboring relations of Mobile

    To provide a more complete answer, I should find out more about Mobile, such as the country it is located in. First, I need to find the neighboring relations of Mobile. Query: <relation>Mobile</relation> <result> [’music.composition.composer’, ’travel.travel_destination.touris...

  65. [73]

    I need to retrieve the entity associated with the relation ’location.location.containedby’ for Mobile. Query: <entity>Mobile, location.location.containedby</entity> <result> [’Alabama’, ’Mobile County’, ’United States of America’, ’Area code 251’] </result> The result includes...

  66. [74]

    How many were played on a hard surface?

    I need to retrieve the entity associated with the relation ’location.hud_county_place.county’ for Mobile. Query: <entity>Mobile, location.hud_county_place.county</entity> <result> [’Mobile County’] </result> This confirms that Mobile is in Mobile County, Alabama, USA. Based on...

  67. [75]

    Wait, let’s double-check:

    Hard Counting the "Hard" entries: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11→That’s 7 times. Wait, let’s double-check:

  68. [76]

    ### Step 6: Verify the Count To ensure accuracy, I’ll recount: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11→7 times

    Hard Yes, "Hard" appears 7 times. ### Step 6: Verify the Count To ensure accuracy, I’ll recount: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11→7 times. Yes, it’s correct. ### Step 7: Formulate the Answer The question is asking for the number of matches played on a hard surface. Based on the data, tha...

  69. [77]

    I should begin with the command ‘go west‘

    **Start by moving west**: The first instruction is to move west. I should begin with the command ‘go west‘

  70. [78]

    The command to pick up an item is usually ‘get [item]‘

    **Retrieve the staple from the chair inside the office**: After moving west, I need to find the office, get the staple from the chair, and pick it up. The command to pick up an item is usually ‘get [item]‘. However, I first need to navigate to the office and identify the staple

  71. [79]

    The command for this is ‘go east‘

    **Head east**: After retrieving the staple, I need to move east. The command for this is ‘go east‘

  72. [80]

    The command to put an item on something is usually ‘put [item] on [location]‘

    **Rest the staple on the shelf inside the cellar**: Finally, I need to go to the cellar, find the shelf, and place the staple there. The command to put an item on something is usually ‘put [item] on [location]‘. Let’s start by moving west. I’ll invoke the **Interface For Obtai...

  73. [81]

    I’ll invoke the **Interface For Obtain Description** to get a description of the current room

    **Command**: ‘go west‘ Now, I need to check the new state of the game to see where I am and what I can do next. I’ll invoke the **Interface For Obtain Description** to get a description of the current room. <description>14 | go west</description> <result> -= Cellar =- You have...

  74. [82]

    looking

    **Command**: ‘go west‘ I’ll check the new room description to see if I’m in the office and to identify the staple. <description>14 | go west, go west</description> <result> -= Office =- I am required to announce that you are now in the office. You try to gain information on yo...

  75. [83]

    **Command**: ‘get staple‘ After getting the staple, I should check the admissible commands to see what I can do next. <admissiblecommand>14 | go west, go west, get staple</admissiblecommand> <result> [’drop burger’, ’eat burger’, ’examine burger’, ’examine chair’, ’examine sta...

  76. [84]

    The next instruction is to rest the staple on the shelf inside the cellar

    **Command**: ‘go east‘ Now, I’m back in the cellar with the staple. The next instruction is to rest the staple on the shelf inside the cellar. I’ll check the description to locate the shelf. <description>14 | go west, go west, get staple, go east</description> <result> -= Cell...

  77. [85]

    I’ll invoke the **Interface For Obtain Feedback** to see the game’s response

    **Command**: ‘put staple on shelf‘ Now, I need to check if this completes the game. I’ll invoke the **Interface For Obtain Feedback** to see the game’s response. <feedback>14 | go west, go west, get staple, go east, put staple on shelf</feedback> <result> You put the staple on...

Pith tools

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