arxiv: 2604.09679 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-03 · 💻 cs.MA · cs.AI

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Heterogeneous Consensus-Progressive Reasoning for Efficient Multi-Agent Debate

Allen He, Hantao Yao, Wu Liu, Yiqing Liu, Yongdong Zhang

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 18:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.MA cs.AI

keywords multi-agent debateconsensus verificationprogressive reasoningtoken efficiencyheterogeneous agentsearly stoppingcollective votingadaptive collaboration

0 comments

The pith

HCP-MAD uses consensus from heterogeneous agent pairs to decide when to escalate multi-agent debate, raising accuracy while lowering token costs across benchmarks.

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

The paper introduces HCP-MAD to address high token costs in multi-agent debate frameworks, where agents iteratively critique and refine answers. It treats consensus as a dynamic signal: a pair of heterogeneous agents quickly verifies agreement on straightforward tasks and stops early, while unresolved cases trigger adaptive pair debate or full collective voting with more agents. This progressive structure matches collaboration level to task complexity instead of applying uniform heavy interaction. A sympathetic reader would care because fixed high-cost MAD wastes resources on easy problems that do not need it. The reported experiments show the approach improves accuracy and cuts token use on multiple benchmarks.

Core claim

HCP-MAD implements a three-stage process: Heterogeneous Consensus Verification runs rapid checks with two heterogeneous agents to enable early stopping; Heterogeneous Pair-Agent Debate applies an adaptive criterion to halt mutual critique once recorded reasoning traces stabilize; and Escalated Collective Voting aggregates input from additional agents only on tasks that remain unresolved. The mechanism rests on the premise that consensus serves as a reliable indicator of task complexity, allowing most problems to finish with lightweight pair interaction.

What carries the argument

Three-stage progressive reasoning that uses heterogeneous consensus verification as the early-stopping signal to scale from pair-agent debate to collective voting.

If this is right

Average token consumption drops because simple tasks terminate after the first verification stage.
Accuracy rises on harder tasks because only those cases receive the additional diverse perspectives from escalated voting.
The framework avoids fixed interaction topologies by letting early consensus determine the required number of agents.
Recorded reasoning traces from the pair stage provide reusable context that later stages can reference without regenerating full histories.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same consensus signal could be tested as a general early-exit trigger in other multi-agent LLM pipelines beyond debate.
If pair-agent consensus correlates poorly with human-judged difficulty, the escalation threshold would need recalibration per domain.
Combining the staged approach with existing topology optimizations might produce further additive savings on very large agent pools.

Load-bearing premise

Consensus between a pair of heterogeneous agents reliably signals whether a task is simple enough to resolve without further agents.

What would settle it

A controlled benchmark run in which HCP-MAD produces either lower accuracy or higher total tokens than standard full-round MAD on the same set of tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09679 by Allen He, Hantao Yao, Wu Liu, Yiqing Liu, Yongdong Zhang.

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: HCP-MAD conducts consensus-guided progressive rea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Analysis of accuracy and token costs of HCP-MAD with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) is a collaborative framework in which multiple agents iteratively refine solutions through the generation of reasoning and alternating critique cycles. Current work primarily optimizes intra-round topologies and inter-round interactions separately, which still results in high token costs regardless of task complexity. This work introduces Heterogeneous Consensus-Progressive Reasoning for Efficient Multi-Agent Debate (HCP-MAD), leveraging consensus as a dynamic signal to facilitate progressive reasoning. The core motivation is that a majority of straightforward tasks can be effectively resolved via lightweight pair-agent debates, while complex tasks require expanded collaboration. Consequently, HCP-MAD employs a three-stage progressive reasoning mechanism to develop adaptive solutions across varying task complexities. Firstly, Heterogeneous Consensus Verification conducts rapid consensus verification using a pair of heterogeneous agents for early stopping. Next, the Heterogeneous Pair-Agent Debate applies an adaptive stopping criterion to dynamically terminate mutual critique of recorded reasoning traces. Finally, the unresolved tasks are addressed through Escalated Collective Voting by aggregating diverse perspectives from additional agents. Experiments across multiple benchmarks show that HCP-MAD significantly enhances accuracy while substantially reducing token costs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

HCP-MAD adds a three-stage escalation structure to multi-agent debate that uses consensus for early stopping, but the abstract supplies no numbers or validation for the claimed accuracy and token gains.

read the letter

The paper's main move is to split multi-agent debate into three progressive stages: a fast heterogeneous pair check that can stop early, an adaptive pair debate on recorded traces, and full escalated voting only for the rest. This directly targets the token bloat that comes from running every task at maximum collaboration, and the framing around task complexity is reasonable on its face. The combination of heterogeneous verification plus trace-based stopping is not the same as the topology tweaks in earlier MAD papers, so there is a concrete architectural difference here. If the full experiments back it up, the approach could be straightforward to adopt in cost-sensitive LLM setups. The experiments are said to show accuracy improvements and lower token use across benchmarks, yet the abstract gives no actual figures, no baseline list, no statistical tests, and no description of how consensus was defined or measured. That leaves the central efficiency claim without visible support. The assumption that consensus reliably signals both simplicity and correctness is plausible but untested in the provided description; agents could agree on shallow or biased answers, and nothing indicates an ablation that isolates whether the stopping rule actually tracks task difficulty. The work is aimed at people building practical multi-agent LLM systems where inference cost is a constraint. It shows coherent engineering thinking on the pipeline even if the empirical grounding is thin so far. I would send it to peer review because the idea is easy to reproduce and the efficiency problem is real, though any referee would need to see the full tables, ablations, and controls before taking the gains at face value.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Heterogeneous Consensus-Progressive Reasoning for Efficient Multi-Agent Debate (HCP-MAD), a three-stage framework for multi-agent debate that begins with Heterogeneous Consensus Verification using a pair of heterogeneous agents to enable early stopping on straightforward tasks, proceeds to Heterogeneous Pair-Agent Debate with an adaptive stopping criterion on recorded reasoning traces, and escalates unresolved tasks to Collective Voting with additional agents. The central claim is that this progressive mechanism, motivated by the idea that consensus signals low task complexity, yields significantly higher accuracy and substantially lower token costs than prior MAD approaches across multiple benchmarks.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold after proper validation, the work would be significant for scalable LLM-based reasoning systems. By treating measured consensus as a dynamic proxy for task difficulty and solution quality, HCP-MAD offers a concrete mechanism to allocate compute adaptively rather than uniformly, addressing a key practical bottleneck in current multi-agent debate literature. The approach is architecture-level rather than parameter-fitting and could generalize to other collaborative LLM pipelines if the consensus-complexity correlation is shown to be robust.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'HCP-MAD significantly enhances accuracy while substantially reducing token costs' is stated without any quantitative numbers, specific baselines, effect sizes, or statistical tests. This absence makes the magnitude and reliability of the reported gains impossible to evaluate and is load-bearing for the paper's contribution.
[§3.1] §3.1 (Heterogeneous Consensus Verification): The manuscript provides no formal definition or operationalization of 'consensus' (e.g., exact agreement threshold, handling of partial agreement, or distance metric on reasoning traces). Without this, it is impossible to determine whether the early-stopping rule is well-specified or reproducible, directly undermining the progressive-reasoning pipeline.
[Experiments] Experiments section: No ablation isolates the predictive power of the consensus signal (e.g., correlation between measured consensus and ground-truth task complexity or solution correctness). The skeptic concern that agents may reach spurious consensus via shared priors rather than reasoning is therefore unaddressed, leaving the accuracy and token-reduction claims without mechanistic support.

minor comments (2)

[§3] Notation for agent heterogeneity and the adaptive stopping criterion should be introduced with explicit symbols and pseudocode in §3 to improve reproducibility.
[§3.2] The description of 'recorded reasoning traces' in the pair-agent debate stage is vague; clarify whether traces are stored verbatim or summarized and how this affects token accounting.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of results, formalize definitions, and add supporting analyses.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'HCP-MAD significantly enhances accuracy while substantially reducing token costs' is stated without any quantitative numbers, specific baselines, effect sizes, or statistical tests. This absence makes the magnitude and reliability of the reported gains impossible to evaluate and is load-bearing for the paper's contribution.

Authors: We agree that the abstract lacks quantitative support for the central claim. In the revised manuscript, we will update the abstract to include specific accuracy improvements, token cost reductions (with percentages and absolute figures), the primary baselines compared, and effect sizes from the experimental results. revision: yes
Referee: [§3.1] §3.1 (Heterogeneous Consensus Verification): The manuscript provides no formal definition or operationalization of 'consensus' (e.g., exact agreement threshold, handling of partial agreement, or distance metric on reasoning traces). Without this, it is impossible to determine whether the early-stopping rule is well-specified or reproducible, directly undermining the progressive-reasoning pipeline.

Authors: We acknowledge that a precise operationalization is needed. We will revise §3.1 to include a formal definition of consensus, specifying the agreement threshold (e.g., exact match on final answer), handling of partial agreements, and the similarity metric applied to reasoning traces. revision: yes
Referee: [Experiments] Experiments section: No ablation isolates the predictive power of the consensus signal (e.g., correlation between measured consensus and ground-truth task complexity or solution correctness). The skeptic concern that agents may reach spurious consensus via shared priors rather than reasoning is therefore unaddressed, leaving the accuracy and token-reduction claims without mechanistic support.

Authors: We will add an ablation study to the Experiments section that quantifies the correlation between the measured consensus signal and both ground-truth task complexity and solution correctness. This will provide mechanistic evidence and directly address concerns regarding spurious consensus. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation chain present; architectural proposal only

full rationale

The paper describes a three-stage HCP-MAD pipeline (Heterogeneous Consensus Verification, Heterogeneous Pair-Agent Debate, Escalated Collective Voting) motivated by the empirical observation that consensus can serve as an early-stopping signal for task complexity. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems are invoked in the provided text. The central claims rest on experimental results across benchmarks rather than any reduction of outputs to inputs by construction. This is a standard engineering contribution with no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the domain assumption that early consensus reliably indicates low task complexity and permits safe early stopping; no free parameters or new invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption A majority of straightforward tasks can be effectively resolved via lightweight pair-agent debates
Explicitly stated as the core motivation for the progressive design.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5488 in / 1186 out tokens · 73721 ms · 2026-05-13T18:48:52.019129+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
Heterogeneous Consensus Verification conducts rapid consensus verification using a pair of heterogeneous agents for early stopping... Φinit = I(ŷ1,0 = ŷ2,0)
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
adaptive stopping criterion... Et and Dt counters for exchange/deadlock

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

[1]

Large language models are zero-shot reasoners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199–22213, 2022

Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199–22213, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Better zero-shot reasoning with self- adaptive prompting

Xingchen Wan, Ruoxi Sun, Hanjun Dai, Sercan Arik, and Tomas Pfister. Better zero-shot reasoning with self- adaptive prompting. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 3493–3514, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Fundamental capabilities and applications of large language models: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 2025

Jiawei Li, Yang Gao, Yizhe Yang, Yu Bai, Xiaofeng Zhou, Yinghao Li, Huashan Sun, Yuhang Liu, Xingpeng Si, Yuhao Ye, et al. Fundamental capabilities and applications of large language models: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 2025

work page 2025
[4]

Gsm-symbolic: Understanding the limitations of mathematical reasoning in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05229,

Iman Mirzadeh, Keivan Alizadeh, Hooman Shahrokhi, Oncel Tuzel, Samy Bengio, and Mehrdad Farajtabar. Gsm-symbolic: Understanding the limitations of mathematical reasoning in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05229, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[5]

A peek into token bias: Large language models are not yet genuine reasoners

Bowen Jiang, Yangxinyu Xie, Zhuoqun Hao, Xiaomeng Wang, Tanwi Mallick, Weijie J Su, Camillo Jose Taylor, and Dan Roth. A peek into token bias: Large language models are not yet genuine reasoners. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4722–4756, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges

Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680, 2024

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[7]

Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

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. 9 Running Title for Header

work page 2022
[8]

Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models

Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

work page 2023
[9]

Escape sky-high cost: Early-stopping self-consistency for multi-step reasoning

Yiwei Li, Peiwen Yuan, Shaoxiong Feng, Boyuan Pan, Xinglin Wang, Bin Sun, Heda Wang, and Kan Li. Escape sky-high cost: Early-stopping self-consistency for multi-step reasoning. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

work page 2024
[10]

Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46534–46594, 2023

Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, et al. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46534–46594, 2023

work page 2023
[11]

Theory of mind for multi-agent collaboration via large language models

Huao Li, Yu Chong, Simon Stepputtis, Joseph P Campbell, Dana Hughes, Charles Lewis, and Katia Sycara. Theory of mind for multi-agent collaboration via large language models. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 180–192, 2023

work page 2023
[12]

Agentverse: Facilitating multi-agent collaboration and exploring emergent behaviors

Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jingwei Zuo, Cheng Yang, Chenfei Yuan, Chi-Min Chan, Heyang Yu, Yaxi Lu, Yi-Hsin Hung, Chen Qian, et al. Agentverse: Facilitating multi-agent collaboration and exploring emergent behaviors. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

work page 2023
[13]

Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversations

Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, et al. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversations. InFirst Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

work page 2024
[14]

Llm-blender: Ensembling large language models with pairwise ranking and generative fusion

Dongfu Jiang, Xiang Ren, and Bill Yuchen Lin. Llm-blender: Ensembling large language models with pairwise ranking and generative fusion. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 14165–14178, 2023

work page 2023
[15]

Encouraging divergent thinking in large language models through multi-agent debate

Tian Liang, Zhiwei He, Wenxiang Jiao, Xing Wang, Yan Wang, Rui Wang, Yujiu Yang, Shuming Shi, and Zhaopeng Tu. Encouraging divergent thinking in large language models through multi-agent debate. InProceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 17889–17904, 2024

work page 2024
[16]

On the advance of making language models better reasoners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02336, 2, 2022

Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Shizhuo Zhang, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. On the advance of making language models better reasoners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02336, 2, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[17]

Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate

Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2023

work page 2023
[18]

ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate

Chi-Min Chan, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jianxuan Yu, Wei Xue, Shanghang Zhang, Jie Fu, and Zhiyuan Liu. Chateval: Towards better llm-based evaluators through multi-agent debate.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07201, 2023

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[19]

Counterfactual debating with preset stances for hallucination elimination of llms

Yi Fang, Moxin Li, Wenjie Wang, Lin Hui, and Fuli Feng. Counterfactual debating with preset stances for hallucination elimination of llms. InProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 10554–10568, 2025

work page 2025
[20]

Qineng Wang, Zihao Wang, Ying Su, Hanghang Tong, and Yangqiu Song. Rethinking the bounds of llm reasoning: Are multi-agent discussions the key? InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6106–6131, 2024

work page 2024
[21]

Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling parameters for reasoning

Charlie Victor Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling parameters for reasoning. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

work page 2025
[22]

Improving multi- agent debate with sparse communication topology

Yunxuan Li, Yibing Du, Jiageng Zhang, Le Hou, Peter Grabowski, Yeqing Li, and Eugene Ie. Improving multi- agent debate with sparse communication topology. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 7281–7294, 2024

work page 2024
[23]

Debate only when necessary: Adaptive multiagent collaboration for efficient llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05047, 2025

Sugyeong Eo, Hyeonseok Moon, Evelyn Hayoon Zi, Chanjun Park, and Heuiseok Lim. Debate only when necessary: Adaptive multiagent collaboration for efficient llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05047, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[24]

imad: Intelligent multi-agent debate for efficient and accurate llm inference

Wei Fan, JinYi Yoon, and Bo Ji. imad: Intelligent multi-agent debate for efficient and accurate llm inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.11306, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[25]

Zhang, Z

Hangfan Zhang, Zhiyao Cui, Jianhao Chen, Xinrun Wang, Qiaosheng Zhang, Zhen Wang, Dinghao Wu, and Shuyue Hu. Stop overvaluing multi-agent debate–we must rethink evaluation and embrace model heterogeneity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08788, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:11809–11822, 2023

Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:11809–11822, 2023. 10 Running Title for Header

work page 2023
[27]

Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models

Maciej Besta, Nils Blach, Ales Kubicek, Robert Gerstenberger, Michal Podstawski, Lukas Gianinazzi, Joanna Gajda, Tomasz Lehmann, Hubert Niewiadomski, Piotr Nyczyk, et al. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 38, pages 17682–17690, 2024

work page 2024
[28]

Reconcile: Round-table conference improves reasoning via consensus among diverse llms

Justin Chen, Swarnadeep Saha, and Mohit Bansal. Reconcile: Round-table conference improves reasoning via consensus among diverse llms. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7066–7085, 2024

work page 2024
[29]

Mars: toward more efficient multi-agent collaboration for llm reasoning,

Xiao Wang, Jia Wang, Yijie Wang, Pengtao Dang, Sha Cao, and Chi Zhang. Mars: toward more efficient multi-agent collaboration for llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20502, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[30]

Groupdebate: Enhancing the efficiency of multi-agent debate using group discussion.CoRR, abs/2409.14051, 2024

Tongxuan Liu, Xingyu Wang, Weizhe Huang, Wenjiang Xu, Yuting Zeng, Lei Jiang, Hailong Yang, and Jing Li. Groupdebate: Enhancing the efficiency of multi-agent debate using group discussion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14051, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[31]

Reaching agreement among reasoning llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.20184, 2025

Chaoyi Ruan, Yiliang Wang, Ziji Shi, and Jialin Li. Reaching agreement among reasoning llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.20184, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[32]

Free-mad: Consensus-free multi-agent debate

Yu Cui, Hang Fu, Haibin Zhang, Licheng Wang, and Cong Zuo. Free-mad: Consensus-free multi-agent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.11035, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems

Yubin Kim, Ken Gu, Chanwoo Park, Chunjong Park, Samuel Schmidgall, A Ali Heydari, Yao Yan, Zhihan Zhang, Yuchen Zhuang, Mark Malhotra, et al. Towards a science of scaling agent systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.08296, 2025

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[34]

Measuring massive multitask language understanding

Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

work page 2021
[35]

Commonsenseqa: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge

Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. Commonsenseqa: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149–4158, 2019

work page 2019
[36]

Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark

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. InFirst Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

work page 2024
[37]

Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[38]

Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems

Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[39]

Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems

Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blunsom. Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. InProceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 158–167, 2017. 11

work page 2017