REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 71 references
Fast, Slow, and Tool-augmented Thinking for LLMs: A Review
T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Fast, slow, and tool-augmented thinking are not three separate LLM reasoning modes but two independent choices: how deeply to reason and whether to draw on external knowledge.
desk verdict Useful two-axis survey of adaptive LLM reasoning, worth refereeing despite an over-stated orthogonality claim and thin positioning against prior surveys. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the pair of orthogonal knowledge boundaries that define the 2×2 strategy space: a fast/slow boundary separating intuitive direct responses from deliberative step-by-step reasoning, and an internal/external boundary separating parametric knowledge from tool-augmented knowledge. The argument is carried by the threshold-crossing decision functions of Eqs. (5)–(6): a decision score $\Phi_d$ or $\Phi_s$ is computed from extracted factors (confidence, task complexity, utility gain) and compared with a threshold $\delta_d$ or $\delta_s$; crossing the boundary flips the strategy on that axis. This mechanism is flexible enough to cover learned implicit policies, where the threshold lives inside the model weights, and explicit routers, where the threshold is a hand-set scalar or a trained lightweight classifier.
What would settle it
On the same set of mixed-difficulty, mixed-tool queries, measure whether the optimal fast/slow switching threshold shifts when retrieval is available versus withheld; a systematic shift would mean the two axes interact and the independence assumed by Eqs. (5)–(6) fails.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a way of organizing an otherwise scattered literature: all LLM reasoning strategies live on a 2×2 grid whose axes are the fast/slow knowledge boundary (computation depth) and the internal/external knowledge boundary (knowledge source). Fast thinking is the direct, step-free answer; slow thinking is chain-of-thought-style deliberation and verification; tool-augmented thinking is any use of external tools, retrieval, or computation, and it can be paired with either fast or slow processing. The paper further claims that every existing adaptive-selection method—implicit ones learned through fine-tuning or reinforcement learning and explicit ones using rules or external routers—can be described by the same two-stage procedure: extract decision factors such as model confidence, task complexity, and utility gain, then cross a threshold on the relevant axis (Eqs. (5)–(6)). This unification lets the field compare methods by which factor they use and where the decision is made, rather than by surface differences in implementation.
Load-bearing premise
The grid assumes that how deeply an LLM reasons and whether it uses external knowledge are independent decisions; if tool use changes the optimal depth of reasoning, the two-by-two taxonomy misrepresents real systems.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Tool-augmented thinking is demoted from a third mode to an axis: retrieval and tools can be combined with either fast direct answers or slow deliberative chains, making Fast-External—simple RAG and function calling—a recognized quadrant rather than an anomaly.
- All selection-based adaptive-reasoning methods become comparable within one two-stage pipeline; a reader can ask separately what decision factors a method extracts and how it computes thresholds, which is a cleaner comparison than listing architectures.
- Confidence, task complexity, and utility gain are complementary signals; the review implies that combining calibrated confidence with complexity estimates should give more reliable routing than any single factor.
- The framework explicitly excludes fusion approaches such as SMaRT that ensemble multiple strategies; any method that aggregates rather than routes falls outside the proposed unification.
Reading between the lines
- Editorial inference: if the two axes interact, the natural extension is to make the fast/slow threshold a function of the internal/external decision (feed $k_s$ into the computation of $\Phi_d$); the paper names this as future work, and a router trained on tool-availability as a depth feature would test it.
- Editorial inference: the Fast-External quadrant may be more common in production than in the literature—simple RAG and API-calling systems already do exactly this—so the taxonomy predicts that research attention to this quadrant will grow as latency budgets tighten.
- Editorial inference: the 2×2 grid suggests a benchmark design: vary required reasoning depth and required tool access independently across a task suite, then measure a selection policy's accuracy-latency frontier; policies that trace a convex frontier would confirm the two levers are worth tuning separately.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This review paper proposes a taxonomy of LLM reasoning strategies organized along two knowledge boundaries: a fast/slow boundary separating intuitive from deliberative computation, and an internal/external boundary separating parametric knowledge from tool-augmented knowledge. The authors formalize adaptive reasoning selection as a two-stage process of decision-factor extraction (Eqs. 1-2) and threshold-based strategy selection (Eqs. 5-6), and survey recent methods under this framework, grouping them into implicit and explicit selection paradigms and into decision factors of model confidence, task complexity, and utility gain. The paper concludes with future directions including pre-training integration, unified selection, orchestration, multimodal selection, personalization, and robustness. The central claim is that tool-augmented thinking is not a third mode but an external-knowledge dimension that intersects with the fast/slow dimension.
Significance. The taxonomy is conceptually appealing and timely, organizing a rapidly growing literature on adaptive reasoning in LLMs into an interpretable 2x2 structure. The claim that tool-augmented thinking should be treated as a knowledge-source dimension rather than a standalone mode is a useful corrective to the common three-way categorization. The survey covers a wide range of recent methods (roughly thirty) and includes worked examples for MUR, FLARE, and AdaptThink. The paper is honest about the exclusion of fusion-based methods and acknowledges potential interactions between the two dimensions. If the orthogonality concern is resolved, the framework could serve as a common vocabulary for future work. The main weaknesses are the unsubstantiated novelty claim and the unresolved status of dimension coupling in the formal model.
major comments (2)
- [Section 2, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The formalization treats reasoning-depth and knowledge-source decisions as independent threshold crossings with separate threshold vectors δd and δs. However, the paper itself concedes at the end of Section 2 that 'these two dimensions may still interact' and proposes only a future extension. This is load-bearing because the novelty claim rests on the orthogonality of the two boundaries. Interleaved methods surveyed in Section 5.2.2 (ReTool, R3-RAG, ARTIST) jointly optimize reasoning and retrieval, which cannot be faithfully represented by independent per-decision thresholds without an added coupling term. The authors should either provide evidence that such methods can be decomposed into independent threshold decisions per step, or extend Eqs. (5)-(6) with a coupling term (e.g., making δd a function of ks) and soften the 'orthogonal' wording. Without this, the descriptive adequacy of the taxonomy for tool-augmented slow thinking remains unresolved.
- [Introduction (contributions list)] The paper asserts that this is 'the first comprehensive review that systematically examines the adaptive selection among all three major reasoning strategies,' but it does not compare with prior surveys such as ref. [5] ('From System 1 to System 2: A Survey of Reasoning Large Language Models'). Because ref. [5] and other reasoning surveys exist, the novelty claim needs to be substantiated with an explicit discussion of what prior reviews cover and what this review adds. This is important because the contribution is framed around this novelty; if the claim is overstated, the contribution is weakened.
minor comments (7)
- [References [21] and [51]] The same FLARE paper appears as both [21] and [51]; these duplicate references should be consolidated.
- [Section 5.2.1 and Figure 3] The method for reference [28] is referred to as 'MeCo' in the text but 'MetaTrigger' in Figure 3; please unify the naming.
- [Figure 3] The spelling 'ARITIST' should be corrected to 'ARTIST'.
- [Section 5.1.1] The acronym 'CRL' for reference [62] is not defined and may be confusing; consider renaming or adding a definition.
- [Abstract and Section 2] The abstract uses 'two orthogonal knowledge boundaries,' but Section 2 later qualifies that the dimensions may interact; recommend replacing 'orthogonal' with 'distinct' or 'conceptually independent' to avoid overclaiming.
- [Table 1] Table 1 does not indicate which of the four quadrants (Fast-Internal, Slow-Internal, Fast-External, Slow-External) each method falls into; adding a quadrant column would make the taxonomy easier to use.
- [Section 2, Eq. (5)] There is a formatting issue in Eq. (5) where 'δ d,t' contains an extra space; please ensure the final typeset version is consistent.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the two-axis taxonomy is a definitional framework, not a derivation; self-citations are non-load-bearing examples.
full rationale
The paper is a survey/taxonomy and makes no empirical prediction. Section 2's Eqs. (5)-(6) are definitions of decision functions given thresholds; they do not derive any result from the taxonomy. The claimed orthogonality of the fast/slow and internal/external axes is an organizing assumption, not a fitted or self-cited premise. The paper explicitly acknowledges at the end of Section 2 that 'these two dimensions may still interact' and that explicit coupling is 'underexplored,' and it offers a future extension; this is a stated limitation rather than a hidden circularity. The three self-references ([28], [52], [68]) are used only as surveyed examples or as an application citation; none is load-bearing for the taxonomy or for any derivation. No parameter is fitted and no prediction is made from a fitted input. The closest concern—that the 2x2 grid is definitional—does not meet the standard of circularity because the paper does not claim to derive the grid from evidence; it proposes it as an organizing framework. Therefore, no circular step can be quoted with a specific reduction, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption The fast/slow and internal/external dimensions are orthogonal, forming a 2x2 grid of reasoning strategies.
- ad hoc to paper Any selection-based adaptive reasoning method can be decomposed into decision factor extraction (Eqs. 1-2) and score-threshold selection (Eqs. 3-6).
- domain assumption The works cited in Figure 3 and Table 1 are representative of the field and sufficient to support the taxonomy.
- domain assumption Cognitive psychology concepts such as System 1/System 2 and metacognition transfer to LLMs as a useful analogy.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Fast, Slow, and Tool-augmented Thinking for LLMs: A Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OPLFKFBY
@misc{pith2026250812265,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Fast, Slow, and Tool-augmented Thinking for LLMs: A Review},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OPLFKFBY}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.12265}
}
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable progress in reasoning across diverse domains. However, effective reasoning in real-world tasks requires adapting the reasoning strategy to the demands of the problem, ranging from fast, intuitive responses to deliberate, step-by-step reasoning and tool-augmented thinking. Drawing inspiration from cognitive psychology, we propose a novel taxonomy of LLM reasoning strategies along two knowledge boundaries: a fast/slow boundary separating intuitive from deliberative processes, and an internal/external boundary distinguishing reasoning grounded in the model's parameters from reasoning augmented by external tools. We systematically survey recent work on adaptive reasoning in LLMs and categorize methods based on key decision factors. We conclude by highlighting open challenges and future directions toward more adaptive, efficient, and reliable LLMs.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[5]
From system 1 to system 2: A survey of reasoning large language models, 2025
Li Z Z, Zhang D, Zhang M L, Zhang J, Liu Z, Yao Y , Xu H, Zheng J, Wang P J, Chen X, others . From system 1 to system 2: A survey of reasoning large language models, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2502.17419, 2025
arXiv 2025
- [1]
-
[2]
Deepseek-r1: Incen- tivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning
Guo D, Yang D, Zhang H, Song J, Zhang R, Xu R, Zhu Q, Ma S, Wang P, Bi X, others . Deepseek-r1: Incen- tivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025
arXiv 2025
- [3]
- [4]
- [6]
-
[7]
Dy- nathink: Fast or slow? a dynamic decision-making framework for large language models
Pan J, Zhang Y , Zhang C, Liu Z, Wang H, Li H. Dy- nathink: Fast or slow? a dynamic decision-making framework for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01009, 2024
arXiv 2024
-
[8]
Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models
Wei J, Wang X, Schuurmans D, Bosma M, Xia F, Chi E, Le Q V , Zhou D, others . Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2022, 35: 24824– 24837
work page 2022
Show all 71 references
-
[9]
Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models
Yao S, Yu D, Zhao J, Shafran I, Griffiths T, Cao Y , Narasimhan K. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in neu- ral information processing systems, 2023, 36: 11809– 11822
2023
-
[10]
Towards mitigat- ing llm hallucination via self reflection
Ji Z, Yu T, Xu Y , Lee N, Ishii E, Fung P. Towards mitigat- ing llm hallucination via self reflection. In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP
-
[11]
Im- proving llm reasoning through scaling inference com- putation with collaborative verification
Liang Z, Liu Y , Niu T, Zhang X, Zhou Y , Yavuz S. Im- proving llm reasoning through scaling inference com- putation with collaborative verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05318, 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[12]
Let llms break free from overthinking via self-braking tuning
Zhao H, Yan Y , Shen Y , Xu H, Zhang W, Song K, Shao J, Lu W, Xiao J, Zhuang Y . Let llms break free from overthinking via self-braking tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14604, 2025
2025
-
[13]
Large language models are zero-shot reasoners
Kojima T, Gu S S, Reid M, Matsuo Y , Iwasawa Y . Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2022, 35: 22199– 22213
2022
-
[14]
Detec- tion and mitigation of hallucination in large reason- ing models: A mechanistic perspective
Sun Z, Wang Q, Wang H, Zhang X, Xu J. Detec- tion and mitigation of hallucination in large reason- ing models: A mechanistic perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12886, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[15]
Confident adaptive language modeling, 2022
Schuster T, Fisch A, Gupta J, Dehghani M, Bahri D, Tran V Q, Tay Y , Metzler D. Confident adaptive language modeling, 2022
2022
-
[16]
How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08910, 2020
Roberts A, Raffel C, Shazeer N. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08910, 2020
2002 arXiv
-
[17]
Adaptive retrieval without self-knowledge? bringing uncertainty back home
Moskvoretskii V , Lysyuk M, Salnikov M, Ivanov N, Pletenev S, Galimzianova D, Krayko N, Konovalov V , Nikishina I, Panchenko A. Adaptive retrieval without self-knowledge? bringing uncertainty back home. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12835, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[18]
Self-route: Automatic mode switching via capa- bility estimation for efficient reasoning
He Y , Ding X, Cai B, Zhang Y , Xiong K, Sun Z, Qin B, Liu T. Self-route: Automatic mode switching via capa- bility estimation for efficient reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20664, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[19]
Adacot: Pareto-optimal adaptive chain- of-thought triggering via reinforcement learning
Lou C, Sun Z, Liang X, Qu M, Shen W, Wang W, Li Y , Yang Q, Wu S. Adacot: Pareto-optimal adaptive chain- of-thought triggering via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11896, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[20]
Thinkswitcher: When to think hard, when to think fast
Liang G, Zhong L, Yang Z, Quan X. Thinkswitcher: When to think hard, when to think fast. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14183, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[21]
Active retrieval augmented generation
Jiang Z, Xu F F, Gao L, Sun Z, Liu Q, Dwivedi-Yu J, Yang Y , Callan J, Neubig G. Active retrieval augmented generation. In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2023, 7969–7992
2023
-
[22]
Mur: Momentum uncer- tainty guided reasoning for large language models
Yan H, Xu F, Xu R, Li Y , Zhang J, Luo H, Wu X, Tuan L A, Zhao H, Lin Q, others . Mur: Momentum uncer- tainty guided reasoning for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.14958, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[23]
Adaptthink: Rea- soning models can learn when to think
Zhang J, Lin N, Hou L, Feng L, Li J. Adaptthink: Rea- soning models can learn when to think. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13417, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[24]
Learning when to think: Shaping adaptive reasoning in r1-style models via multi-stage rl
Tu S, Lin J, Zhang Q, Tian X, Li L, Lan X, Zhao D. Learning when to think: Shaping adaptive reasoning in r1-style models via multi-stage rl. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10832, 2025
2025
-
[25]
Certainty- guided reasoning in large language models: A dy- namic thinking budget approach
Nogueira J P, Sun W, Silva A, Zumot L. Certainty- guided reasoning in large language models: A dy- namic thinking budget approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07820, 2025
2025
-
[26]
Dynamic early exit in reasoning models
Yang C, Si Q, Duan Y , Zhu Z, Zhu C, Li Q, Lin Z, Cao L, Wang W. Dynamic early exit in reasoning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15895, 2025
2025
-
[27]
Seakr: Self-aware knowledge retrieval for adaptive re- trieval augmented generation, 2024
Yao Z, Qi W, Pan L, Cao S, Hu L, Liu W, Hou L, Li J. Seakr: Self-aware knowledge retrieval for adaptive re- trieval augmented generation, 2024
2024
-
[28]
Adaptive tool use in large language models with meta-cognition trigger
Li W, Li D, Dong K, Zhang C, Zhang H, Liu W, Wang Y , Tang R, Liu Y . Adaptive tool use in large language models with meta-cognition trigger. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12961, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[29]
Adaptive retrieval- augmented generation for conversational systems
Wang X, Sen P, Li R, Yilmaz E. Adaptive retrieval- augmented generation for conversational systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21712, 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[30]
Uncertainty-guided chain-of-thought for code genera- tion with llms
Zhu Y , Li G, Jiang X, Li J, Mei H, Jin Z, Dong Y . Uncertainty-guided chain-of-thought for code genera- tion with llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15341, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[31]
Reasoning models know when they’re right: Prob- ing hidden states for self-verification
Zhang A, Chen Y , Pan J, Zhao C, Panda A, Li J, He H. Reasoning models know when they’re right: Prob- ing hidden states for self-verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05419, 2025 Xinda Jia et al. Fast, Slow, and Tool-augmented Thinking for LLMs: A Review 19
2025 arXiv
-
[32]
Sugar: Leveraging contextual confidence for smarter retrieval
Zubkova H, Park J H, Lee S W. Sugar: Leveraging contextual confidence for smarter retrieval. In: ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). 2025, 1–5
2025
-
[33]
Smart: Select, mix, and reinvent–a strategy fusion framework for llm-driven reasoning and planning
Verma N, Bharadwaj M, Jang W, Singh H, Wang Y , Fashandi H, Lee C. Smart: Select, mix, and reinvent–a strategy fusion framework for llm-driven reasoning and planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.18095, 2025
2025
-
[34]
Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry
Flavell J H. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 1979, 34(10): 906
1979
-
[35]
Cognitive load during problem solving: Ef- fects on learning
Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: Ef- fects on learning. Cognitive science, 1988, 12(2): 257– 285
1988
-
[36]
Au- tol2s: Auto long-short reasoning for efficient large lan- guage models
Luo F, Chuang Y N, Wang G, Le H A D, Zhong S, Liu H, Yuan J, Sui Y , Braverman V , Chaudhary V , others . Au- tol2s: Auto long-short reasoning for efficient large lan- guage models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22662, 2025
2025
-
[37]
Tl; dr: Too long, do re-weighting for effcient llm reasoning compression
Li Z Z, Liang X, Tang Z, Ji L, Wang P, Xu H, Huang H, Deng W, Wu Y N, Gong Y , others . Tl; dr: Too long, do re-weighting for effcient llm reasoning compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02678, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[38]
Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self- reflection
Asai A, Wu Z, Wang Y , Sil A, Hajishirzi H. Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self- reflection. In: The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. 2023
2023
-
[39]
Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools,
Schick T, Dwivedi-Yu J, Dessì R, Raileanu R, Lomeli M, Zettlemoyer L, Cancedda N, Scialom T. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools,
-
[40]
We- bgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback
Nakano R, Hilton J, Balaji S, Wu J, Ouyang L, Kim C, Hesse C, Jain S, Kosaraju V , Saunders W, others . We- bgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09332, 2021
2021 arXiv
-
[41]
Synapseroute: An auto- route switching framework on dual-state large language model
Zhang W, Qiao S, Luo L, Li Y , Zheng C, Xu Q, Li M, Gui Y , He Y , Qiu J, others . Synapseroute: An auto- route switching framework on dual-state large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02822, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[42]
Kat-v1: Kwai-autothink technical report
Zhan Z, Deng K, Tang H, Xiang W, Wu K, Li W, Zhu W, Xu J, Huang L, Feng Z, others . Kat-v1: Kwai-autothink technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08297, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[43]
Think only when you need with large hybrid-reasoning models
Jiang L, Wu X, Huang S, Dong Q, Chi Z, Dong L, Zhang X, Lv T, Cui L, Wei F. Think only when you need with large hybrid-reasoning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14631, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[44]
To trust or not to trust? enhancing large language models’ situ- ated faithfulness to external contexts
Huang Y , Chen S, Cai H, Dhingra B. To trust or not to trust? enhancing large language models’ situ- ated faithfulness to external contexts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14675, 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[45]
Exaone 4.0: Unified large language models integrating non-reasoning and reasoning modes
Research L, Bae K, Choi E, Choi K, Choi S J, Choi Y , Han K, Hong S, Hwang J, Hwang T, others . Exaone 4.0: Unified large language models integrating non-reasoning and reasoning modes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.11407, 2025
2025
-
[46]
Introducing gpt-5, 2025
OpenAI . Introducing gpt-5, 2025
2025
-
[47]
Thinking with nothinking calibration: A new in-context learn- ing paradigm in reasoning large language models
Wu H, Xu B, Shu Y , Yang M, Qin C. Thinking with nothinking calibration: A new in-context learn- ing paradigm in reasoning large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.03363, 2025
2025
-
[48]
Z1: Efficient test-time scaling with code
Yu Z, Wu Y , Zhao Y , Cohan A, Zhang X P. Z1: Efficient test-time scaling with code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00810, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[49]
Qwen3 technical report
Yang A, Li A, Yang B, Zhang B, Hui B, Zheng B, Yu B, Gao C, Huang C, Lv C, others . Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[50]
Llama-nemotron: Efficient reasoning models
Bercovich A, Levy I, Golan I, Dabbah M, El-Yaniv R, Puny O, Galil I, Moshe Z, Ronen T, Nabwani N, others . Llama-nemotron: Efficient reasoning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00949, 2025
2025
-
[51]
Active retrieval augmented gener- ation
Jiang Z, Xu F, Gao L, Sun Z, Liu Q, Dwivedi-Yu J, Yang Y , Callan J, Neubig G. Active retrieval augmented gener- ation. In: Bouamor H, Pino J, Bali K, eds, Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. December 2023
2023
-
[52]
The web can be your oyster for improving large language models
Li J, Tang T, Zhao W X, Wang J, Nie J Y , Wen J R. The web can be your oyster for improving large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10998, 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[53]
Dragin: Dynamic retrieval augmented generation based on the information needs of large language models, 2024
Su W, Tang Y , Ai Q, Wu Z, Liu Y . Dragin: Dynamic retrieval augmented generation based on the information needs of large language models, 2024
2024
-
[54]
Retrieve only when it needs: Adaptive retrieval augmentation for hallucination mitigation in large language models
Ding H, Pang L, Wei Z, Shen H, Cheng X. Retrieve only when it needs: Adaptive retrieval augmentation for hallucination mitigation in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10612, 2024
2024
-
[55]
Alignment for efficient tool calling of large language models
Xu H, Wang Z, Zhu Z, Pan L, Chen X, Chen L, Yu K. Alignment for efficient tool calling of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06708, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[56]
Adapting while learning: Ground- ing llms for scientific problems with intelligent tool us- age adaptation
Lyu B, Cao Y , Watson-Parris D, Bergen L, Berg- Kirkpatrick T, Yu R. Adapting while learning: Ground- ing llms for scientific problems with intelligent tool us- age adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00412, 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[57]
To code or not to code? adaptive tool integration for math language models via expectation-maximization
Wang H, Li L, Qu C, Zhu F, Xu W, Chu W, Lin F. To code or not to code? adaptive tool integration for math language models via expectation-maximization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00691, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[58]
Retool: Reinforcement learning for strategic tool use in llms
Feng J, Huang S, Qu X, Zhang G, Qin Y , Zhong B, Jiang C, Chi J, Zhong W. Retool: Reinforcement learning for strategic tool use in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11536, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[59]
R3-rag: Learning step-by- step reasoning and retrieval for llms via reinforcement 20 Front
Li Y , Luo Q, Li X, Li B, Cheng Q, Wang B, Zheng Y , Wang Y , Yin Z, Qiu X. R3-rag: Learning step-by- step reasoning and retrieval for llms via reinforcement 20 Front. Comput. Sci., 2026, 0(0): 1–20 learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23794, 2025
2026
-
[60]
Agentic reasoning and tool integration for llms via reinforcement learning
Singh J, Magazine R, Pandya Y , Nambi A. Agentic reasoning and tool integration for llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01441, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[61]
Toolken+: Improving llm tool usage with reranking and a reject option
Yakovlev K, Nikolenko S, Bout A. Toolken+: Improving llm tool usage with reranking and a reject option. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12004, 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[62]
Confidence in the reasoning of large language models
Pawitan Y , Holmes C. Confidence in the reasoning of large language models. Harvard Data Science Review, 2025, 7(1)
2025
-
[63]
Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models
Wang X, Wei J, Schuurmans D, Le Q, Chi E, Narang S, Chowdhery A, Zhou D. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2022
2022 arXiv
-
[64]
Wizardlm: Empowering large pre- trained language models to follow complex instructions
Xu C, Sun Q, Zheng K, Geng X, Zhao P, Feng J, Tao C, Lin Q, Jiang D. Wizardlm: Empowering large pre- trained language models to follow complex instructions. In: The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. 2024
2024
-
[65]
Gaia: a benchmark for general ai assistants, 2023
Mialon G, Fourrier C, Swift C, Wolf T, LeCun Y , Scialom T. Gaia: a benchmark for general ai assistants, 2023
2023
-
[66]
When do llms need retrieval augmentation? mitigating llms’ overconfidence helps retrieval augmentation
Ni S, Bi K, Guo J, Cheng X. When do llms need retrieval augmentation? mitigating llms’ overconfidence helps retrieval augmentation. In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024. 2024, 11375– 11388
2024
-
[67]
A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions
Huang L, Yu W, Ma W, Zhong W, Feng Z, Wang H, Chen Q, Peng W, Feng X, Qin B, others . A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. ACM Trans- actions on Information Systems, 2025, 43(2): 1–55
2025
-
[68]
The real barrier to llm agent usability is agentic roi
Liu W, Qin J, Huang X, Zeng X, Xi Y , Lin J, Wu C, Wang Y , Shang L, Tang R, others . The real barrier to llm agent usability is agentic roi. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17767, 2025
2025
-
[69]
Multi-agent collaboration mechanisms: A survey of llms
Tran K T, Dao D, Nguyen M D, Pham Q V , O’Sullivan B, Nguyen H D. Multi-agent collaboration mechanisms: A survey of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06322, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[70]
The interaction between text modality and the learner’s modality preference influ- ences comprehension and cognitive load
Lehmann J, Seufert T. The interaction between text modality and the learner’s modality preference influ- ences comprehension and cognitive load. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020, 10: 2820
2020
-
[2023]
arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761, 2023
2023 arXiv
Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.