Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Ring-lite: Scalable Reasoning via C3PO-Stabilized Reinforcement Learning for LLMs

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 Ring-lite, a 16.8B-parameter MoE with 2.75B active parameters, matches or surpasses dense sub-10B reasoning models on math, code, and science benchmarks.

desk verdict Strong RL-engineering contribution with credible gains, but the unverified decontamination of training data is the biggest risk to the headline benchmark claims; needs artifact release and a C3PO-vs-GRPO benchmark head-to-head before I'd fully trust Table 1. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14731 v2 pith:PTY7WWJO submitted 2025-06-17 cs.CL cs.AI

Ling Team , Bin Hu , Cai Chen , Deng Zhao , Ding Liu , Dingnan Jin , Feng Zhu , Hao Dai
show 38 more authors
Hongzhi Luan Jia Guo Jiaming Liu Jiewei Wu Jun Mei Jun Zhou Junbo Zhao Junwu Xiong Kaihong Zhang Kuan Xu Lei Liang Liang Jiang Liangcheng Fu Longfei Zheng Qiang Gao Qing Cui Quan Wan Shaomian Zheng Shuaicheng Li Tongkai Yang Wang Ren Xiaodong Yan Xiaopei Wan Xiaoyun Feng Xin Zhao Xinxing Yang Xinyu Kong Xuemin Yang Yang Li Yingting Wu Yongkang Liu Zhankai Xu Zhenduo Zhang Zhenglei Zhou Zhenyu Huang Zhiqiang Zhang Zihao Wang Zujie Wen
This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords Mixture-of-ExpertsreinforcementlearningreasoningmodelsC3POtokenbudgetingGRPOLLMtrainingstabilitymathematical
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

The paper presents Ring-lite, a 16.8-billion-parameter mixture-of-experts (MoE) model with only 2.75 billion active parameters, and claims it matches or beats dense reasoning models of about 8 billion parameters on AIME 2024/2025, LiveCodeBench, Codeforces, and GPQA-Diamond. The claimed average score is 76.65, against 75.15 for the leading dense baseline. To get there, the authors identify two obstacles in RL training of MoE reasoning models—reward collapse and throughput fluctuation—and propose C3PO, a token-budgeted variant of GRPO that fixes the number of training tokens per optimization step. They also show that choosing the distillation checkpoint by entropy loss, rather than validation accuracy, and a two-stage RL schedule (math first, then code and science) improve stability and final performance. The wider significance is that an efficient sparse model can reach the reasoning level of a much larger dense model if the RL training is made stable.

What carries the argument

C3PO (Constrained Contextual Computation Policy Optimization) is the central mechanism: a token-level RL objective with a fixed training token budget $\Phi$ per optimization step, in which responses are sampled and truncated so that each step's selected tokens sum to $\Phi$. This makes gradient contributions homogeneous across sequences of different lengths, stabilizes the norm of the policy-gradient updates, and turns variable wall-clock steps into deterministic ones. The two supporting engineering choices are entropy-based checkpoint selection from the distillation stage and a two-stage RL schedule (math first, then code plus science) that the paper shows outperforms naive mixing of domains.

What would settle it

Check the released training set, especially the problems crawled from AoPS contest archives, for exact or near-duplicate matches with the AIME 2024, AIME 2025, and LiveCodeBench evaluation items; a nontrivial overlap rate would directly reduce the claimed margins over the dense baselines.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a small MoE reasoning model can reach state-of-the-art results among sub-10B models while activating one-third of the parameters of its dense competitors, and that this is made possible by making RL training stable. The load-bearing stability mechanism is C3PO, which imposes a fixed token budget per optimization step so that every step feeds the same number of tokens to the optimizer, yielding homogeneous gradient contributions across variable-length responses and removing the length-driven gradient spikes that otherwise lead to reward collapse in distilled models. The paper also claims that selecting the SFT checkpoint by entropy loss (in a moderate range, roughly 0.3-0.5) and training math first before code and science prevents inter-domain conflict and yields the best performance-efficiency trade-off.

Load-bearing premise

The reported superiority over dense baselines depends on the training data being free of overlap with the evaluation benchmarks; the paper describes a decontamination pipeline but does not show a measured overlap analysis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the benchmark results hold, a 2.75B-active MoE can replace an 8B dense reasoning model at about one-third the parameter cost, changing the practical trade-off for deploying small reasoning systems.
  • C3PO's fixed token budget implies that long-CoT RL training on MoE models can avoid reward collapse and throughput spikes, which would make scaled RL reasoning training more predictable.
  • Entropy-based checkpoint selection gives a concrete rule for when to stop distillation and start RL: pick the SFT model whose entropy remains in the explorable range rather than the one with the best validation score.
  • Two-stage RL with math before code and science provides a template for combining multi-domain data where one-stage mixing regresses on both domains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to apply C3PO-style token budgeting to other RL objectives (e.g., PPO or REINFORCE variants) on dense models; if the stability gain is purely from variance reduction, the same effect should appear regardless of MoE sparsity.
  • The paper's own training-data description leaves open how much the AoPS-crawled math problems overlap with AIME probes; a concrete overlap audit would determine whether the headline margins are real or inflated.
  • The entropy range 0.3-0.5 for checkpoint selection is presented as an empirical observation; a principled link between policy entropy at SFT and the feasible KL budget in RL would make the rule portable to other model families and data mixes.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents Ring-lite, a 16.8B-parameter Mixture-of-Experts model with 2.75B active parameters, built from Ling-lite via long-CoT SFT followed by a two-stage RL pipeline. The authors introduce C3PO, a token-budgeted variant of GRPO that fixes the number of training tokens per optimization step, propose selecting SFT checkpoints by entropy loss rather than validation metrics, and adopt a math-first, then code-and-science, training schedule to mitigate domain conflict. Table 1 reports an average score of 76.65 across math, coding, and science benchmarks, above Qwen3-8B-Thinking (75.15) at one-third of the active parameters. The paper also presents training-dynamics comparisons of C3PO against GRPO and ablation tables for the staged-training and entropy-selection claims.

Significance. If the reported benchmark numbers are uncontaminated and the baseline comparisons are fair, this is a meaningful result: it demonstrates that a small-active-parameter MoE can match or exceed larger dense reasoning models, and it offers a concrete, reproducible recipe for stabilizing MoE RL through a fixed token budget, entropy-based checkpoint selection, and staged multi-domain training. The paper is commendably transparent about data sources, hyperparameters, and its release plans, and the C3PO mechanism is simple enough for others to implement. The main empirical case is currently supported by asserted but not demonstrated decontamination, single-run evaluations without variance estimates, and a C3PO-versus-GRPO comparison that lacks final benchmark deltas; these are verifiable gaps rather than internal contradictions.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.2.1 and 2.3] The headline comparison in Table 1 is valid only if the RL training data are disjoint from the evaluation problems. Section 2.2.1 states that math problems were crawled from the AoPS contest archives, which are the same archives that contain the AIME problems used as AIME24/AIME25 evaluation sets, and that code data come from CodeContest, TACO, APPS, and QOJ, while Codeforces (14 Div.2 contests) is an evaluation benchmark and CodeContest has substantial Codeforces overlap. Section 2.3 asserts 'strict ... decontamination' and semantic deduplication, but it gives no exact-match counts, no near-duplicate thresholds, no examples of removed problems, and no released contamination report. Please provide a concrete overlap analysis for each evaluation set and make it available with the release; without this, the parameter-efficiency claim rests on an unverifiable pipeline description.
  2. [Sec. 4.3.1, Figs. 7-8] Figures 7 and 8 show that C3PO reduces response-length fluctuation, gradient-norm spikes, reward collapse, and throughput variance relative to GRPO, but no downstream benchmark scores are reported for the two algorithms. The text concludes that C3PO 'not only resolves the instability inherent in GRPO ... but also ensures efficient RL training,' yet the only evidence of efficiency is token throughput; there is no comparison of final AIME/LiveCodeBench/GPQA accuracy for C3PO versus GRPO under matched compute. Please add a table reporting final benchmark results for C3PO and GRPO, and ideally for token budgets of different sizes, so that the stability mechanism can be connected to final model quality.
  3. [Sec. 4.3.2, Table 2] The paper recommends selecting distillation checkpoints with entropy loss in the range 0.3-0.5 and uses token efficiency to choose the best SFT epoch. The evidence in Table 2 and Figure 9 comes from the same runs that were used to identify that range; there is no held-out checkpoint-selection experiment and no multiple-seed variance. The statement that 'entropy loss values below this threshold limit model exploration' is presented as a general finding from a post hoc selection. Please report a pre-specified or cross-validated selection rule, or at least demonstrate that the same thresholds recover comparable performance on an independent base model and seed.
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The formal definition of C3PO needs correction. In Eq. (2), Psi is described as 'the selected tokens' and the indicator I[yi,t in Psi] masks individual tokens, while |Psi| = Phi is a token budget. In Eq. (3), Psi is instead defined as a set of complete responses satisfying cumulative-token constraints, so the indicator in Eq. (2) is undefined. The normalization 1/Phi over the masked sum also appears to be at odds with the per-response normalization in Eq. (1), and the KL term in Eq. (2) is not normalized by 1/Phi. Please clarify the exact sampling procedure and the loss expression, since this is the central algorithmic contribution.
  5. [Sec. 4.1.3-4.1.4, Table 1] Table 1 mixes numbers marked with an asterisk that were collected from original papers with numbers evaluated by the authors, while the caption claims that all models are evaluated with the same setting. For the headline comparison, starred scores may have used different sampling temperatures, pass-at-k conventions, or code- judging protocols; the Codeforces metric in particular is defined in different ways across papers. Please mark clearly which entries were re-evaluated locally, report the evaluation-harness versions, and either rerun the same protocol for the main baselines or justify why the protocol differences are immaterial.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figs. 7-8, Fig. 3 caption] Figures 7 and 8 contain corrupted y-axis labels ('Policy Grad/glyph1197orm'), and the Figure 3 caption contains the typo 'comparsion'; these rendering artifacts should be fixed before camera-ready.
  2. [Fig. 9 caption] The Figure 9 caption says 'Reward curves across different SFT training epochs,' but the panels plot SFT training tokens versus average performance with token-efficiency labels; the caption should describe what is actually shown.
  3. [Sec. 4.3.2] Section 4.3.2 states 'we used a constant warm-up learning rate scheduler with rates [1e-6, 3e-6]' and later repeats 'a constant warm-up learning rate scheduler with rates [2e-6, 3e-6]'; please clarify the scheduler design and which rate applies to each model.
  4. [Tables 2-4] Tables 2-4 report single-run numbers without error estimates; AIME pass@1 is known to be high-variance, so differences of about one percentage point (for example, the GPQA values 61.48 versus 61.71 in Table 4) should not be interpreted without multiple seeds or at least bootstrap intervals.
  5. [Sec. 4.1.2, Table 1] The Codeforces metric is reported as 'percentile' without stating whether it is expected-rating percentile, fraction of competitors beaten, or another quantity; Section 4.1.2 should define it precisely.
  6. [References and typos] There are several typos (for example, 'sovled' in Section 2.3 and 'execuation' in Section 3.3.2), and the reference for Ring-lite-distill-preview is a GitHub-hosted PDF; please provide a stable archival citation if this work is formally released.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline comparison is empirical and externally benchmarked; C3PO and entropy-selection claims are experimental findings, not derivations from their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a first-principles derivation of its benchmark results. Ring-lite's performance is measured against external benchmarks (AIME, LiveCodeBench, Codeforces, GPQA) and compared with independently trained dense baselines; this is empirical evidence, not a quantity derived from its own fitting procedure. The C3PO loss in Eq. (2) normalizes by the token budget Φ by construction, so 'homogeneous gradient contributions' is a definitional property of the loss rather than a predicted outcome, and the paper's stability and efficiency claims are supported by direct comparisons with GRPO in Figures 7-8, not by the equation alone. The entropy-range selection (0.3-0.5) is a post-hoc empirical summary of Table 2 and is used as a design choice; while it is fitted to the same runs and therefore a mild selection-on-results concern, it is not presented as an independent prediction, so it does not meet the threshold of a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (Ling-Team 2025 for the Ling-lite base model and auxiliary losses; Tang et al. 2025 for Ring-lite-distill-preview) are used for the base model and standard regularization terms, not to justify the headline comparison; no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The decontamination description is an unverified validity risk, not a circularity.

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

The central claim relies on standard RL math (GRPO), one base model from the authors' prior work, and two unverified external data/verifier assumptions. The main free parameters are training constants that are not fitted to the benchmark targets, except the entropy checkpoint range which was selected post hoc.

free parameters (3)
  • Token budget Phi = 409600 tokens per step
    Chosen by hand to balance throughput and stability; the central C3PO mechanism depends on this value.
  • Entropy checkpoint range = 0.3 to 0.5 entropy loss
    Determined retrospectively from the RL curves (Figures 5-6) and used to select the final SFT checkpoint; a post-hoc decision rule.
  • Learning rates = 3e-6 (Ring-lite), 2e-6 (Qwen)
    Tuned per model in the RL experiments (Section 4.3.2); affects stability and final performance.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The group-normalized advantage estimator (GRPO) is a valid optimization target for reasoning RL
    Assumed from prior work (DeepSeek-R1, DAPO); used as the base objective in Eq. 1.
  • domain assumption The Ling-lite base model provides a suitable initialization for distillation and RL
    The paper builds on Ling-lite (Ling-Team, 2025) without evaluating alternative MoE bases.
  • domain assumption AIME, LiveCodeBench, and GPQA evaluation sets are not contaminated by the training data
    The paper claims decontamination (Section 2.3) but provides no quantitative overlap check; the performance claims depend on this.
  • domain assumption Math-Verify and the code sandbox reward functions accurately capture correctness
    Reward is a sparse 0/1 based on these tools (Sections 3.3.1-3.3.2); errors in the verifier would directly bias the RL signal and the evaluation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ring-lite: Scalable Reasoning via C3PO-Stabilized Reinforcement Learning for LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PTY7WWJO

@misc{pith2026250614731,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ring-lite: Scalable Reasoning via C3PO-Stabilized Reinforcement Learning for LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PTY7WWJO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14731}
}
read the original abstract

We present Ring-lite, a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE)-based large language model optimized via reinforcement learning (RL) to achieve efficient and robust reasoning capabilities. Built upon the publicly available Ling-lite model, a 16.8 billion parameter model with 2.75 billion activated parameters, our approach matches the performance of state-of-the-art (SOTA) small-scale reasoning models on challenging benchmarks (e.g., AIME, LiveCodeBench, GPQA-Diamond) while activating only one-third of the parameters required by comparable models. To accomplish this, we introduce a joint training pipeline integrating distillation with RL, revealing undocumented challenges in MoE RL training. First, we identify optimization instability during RL training, and we propose Constrained Contextual Computation Policy Optimization(C3PO), a novel approach that enhances training stability and improves computational throughput via algorithm-system co-design methodology. Second, we empirically demonstrate that selecting distillation checkpoints based on entropy loss for RL training, rather than validation metrics, yields superior performance-efficiency trade-offs in subsequent RL training. Finally, we develop a two-stage training paradigm to harmonize multi-domain data integration, addressing domain conflicts that arise in training with mixed dataset. We will release the model, dataset, and code.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Agentar-Fin-R1: Enhancing Financial Intelligence through Domain Expertise, Training Efficiency, and Advanced Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Agentar-Fin-R1, an 8B and 32B financial LLM family, reports top scores on FinEval, FinanceIQ, and a new Finova benchmark while keeping general reasoning near its Qwen3 base.

  2. Stabilizing Policy Optimization via Logits Convexity

    cs.LG 2026-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    LCO replaces PPO-style policy gradients with regression toward the advantage-derived optimal logits/policy, restoring logits-level convexity and yielding more stable LLM RL training.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [2]

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

    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, 2025.https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17387. Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xia...

    arXiv 2025

  2. [3]

    DeepSeek-AI

    https://arxiv.org/ abs/2505.16400. DeepSeek-AI. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning,

    arXiv

  3. [4]

    org/abs/2501.12948

    https://arxiv. org/abs/2501.12948. Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Leng Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, Jie Liu, Lei Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting AGI with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, a...

    arXiv 2024

  4. [6]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2503. 24290. Naman Jain, King Han, Alex Gu, Wen-Ding Li, Fanjia Yan, Tianjun Zhang, Sida Wang, Armando Solar-Lezama, Koushik Sen, and Ion Stoica. Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, Apr...

    work page 2025

  5. [7]

    Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay V

    OpenReview.net, 2025.https://openreview.net/forum?id=chfJJYC3iL. Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay V . Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, Yuhuai Wu, Behnam Neyshabur, Guy Gur-Ari, and Vedant Misra. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. In Sanmi Ko...

    work page 2025

  6. [9]

    Ling-Team

    https://openreview.net/forum?id= v8L0pN6EOi. Ling-Team. Every flop counts: Scaling a 300b mixture-of-experts ling llm without premium gpus, 2025.https://arxiv. org/abs/2503.05139. Junnan Liu, Hongwei Liu, Linchen Xiao, Ziyi Wang, Kuikun Liu, Songyang Gao, Wenwei Zhang, Songyang Zhang, and Kai Chen. Are your llms capable of stable reasoning?CoRR, abs/2412.13147,

    arXiv 2025

  7. [10]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.13147

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2412.13147. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.13147. Zichen Liu, Changyu Chen, Wenjun Li, Penghui Qi, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, Wee Sun Lee, and Min Lin. Understanding r1-zero-like training: A critical perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20783,

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.13147

  8. [11]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization, 2019.https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization, 2019.https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101. Dakuan Lu, Xiaoyu Tan, Rui Xu, Tianchu Yao, Chao Qu, Wei Chu, Yinghui Xu, and Yuan Qi. Scp-116k: A high-quality problem-solution dataset and a generalized pipeline for automated extraction in the higher education science domain, 2025.https://arx...

    arXiv 2019

Show all 15 references
  1. [12]

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15115. 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,

    arXiv

  2. [14]

    https://github.com/ inclusionAI/Ring/blob/main/Ring_Lite_Distill_Preview.pdf. Tencent Hunyuan Team, Ao Liu, Botong Zhou, Can Xu, Chayse Zhou, ChenChen Zhang, Chengcheng Xu, Chenhao Wang, Decheng Wu, Dengpeng Wu, Dian Jiao, Dong Du, Dong Wang, Feng Zhang, Fengzong Lian, Guanghu...

    2025

  3. [15]

    https: //arxiv.org/abs/2504.14286. 21

    arXiv

  4. [2022]

    Rongao Li, Jie Fu, Bo-Wen Zhang, Tao Huang, Zhihong Sun, Chen Lyu, Guang Liu, Zhi Jin, and Ge Li

    http: //papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/18abbeef8cfe9203fdf9053c9c4fe191-Abstract-Conference.html. Rongao Li, Jie Fu, Bo-Wen Zhang, Tao Huang, Zhihong Sun, Chen Lyu, Guang Liu, Zhi Jin, and Ge Li. Taco: Topics in algorithmic code generation dataset, 2023.https://arx...

    2022 arXiv

  5. [2023]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12022. Caizhi Tang, Chilin Fu, Chunwei Wu, Jia Guo, Jianwen Wang, Jingyu Hu, Liang Jiang, Meng Li, Peng Jiao, Pingping Liu, Shaomian Zheng, Shiwei Liang, Shuaicheng Li, Yalin Zhang, Yingting Wu, Yongkang Liu, and Zhenyu Huang. Holistic capability pre...

    arXiv

  6. [2024]

    doi: 10.18653/V1/2024.ACL-LONG.211.https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.211. Jujie He, Jiacai Liu, Chris Yuhao Liu, Rui Yan, Chaojie Wang, Peng Cheng, Xiaoyu Zhang, Fuxiang Zhang, Jiacheng Xu, Wei Shen, Siyuan Li, Liang Zeng, Tianwen Wei, Cheng Cheng, Bo An, Yang Liu, and...

    2024 arXiv

  7. [2025]

    Nemotron-crossthink: Scaling self-learning beyond math reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2504.13941,

    Syeda Nahida Akter, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Matvei Novikov, Seungju Han, Ying Lin, Evelina Bakhturi, Eric Nyberg, Yejin Choi, Mostofa Patwary, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catanzaro. Nemotron-crossthink: Scaling self-learning beyond math reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2504.13941,

Pith tools

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