Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 14 references

Streaming Communication in Multi-Agent Reasoning

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that streaming each reasoning step to the next agent as soon as it is generated — instead of waiting for the full chain — reduces latency and improves accuracy, because early reasoning steps are more reliable than late ones

desk verdict The streaming protocol and its latency bound are worth knowing; the headline accuracy gain is not a clean test because Stream’s root prompt differs from Serial’s, so treat the +7.3 pp as promising but unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.05158 v2 pith:FDVJ3IQG submitted 2026-06-03 cs.CL cs.AIcs.MA

Zhen Yang , Xiaogang Xu , Wen Wang , Cong Chen , Xander Xu , Ying-Cong Chen This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.MA
keywords multi-agentreasoningstreamingcommunicationpipelineparallelismchain-of-thoughtstep-levelcorrectnessscalinglawlatencyreductionprotocol
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

Multi-agent LLM systems normally wait for one agent to finish its entire response before passing it downstream. This paper argues that this generate-then-transfer protocol is suboptimal: if each reasoning step is streamed to the next agent the moment it is produced, downstream agents start from the reliable early steps and are less misled by the error-prone later ones. The claimed result is that the stream protocol beats the serial protocol in both speed and accuracy, an outcome the paper formalizes in a six-case ordering theorem. Across eight reasoning benchmarks in mathematics, science, and code, with two frontier models and three topologies, streaming wins by an average of 7.3 percentage points while cutting wall-clock latency by up to 26.9 times. The paper also reports a step-level scaling law: increasing per-agent reasoning steps improves both accuracy and speed, a dimension orthogonal to adding more agents.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Theorem 1's effectiveness ordering, expressed through the sCorr proxy, the mean expected downstream step-level correctness. For each upstream step j with correctness probability p_j, the model assigns a benefit δ to a correct step and a penalty ε to an incorrect one, so the net effect is µ_j = p_j δ − (1−p_j)ε, beneficial only when p_j exceeds the breakeven threshold p* = ε/(δ+ε). The ordering among Stream, Serial, and Single depends on three weighted averages of the p_j: the uniform mean p̄, the head-weighted mean p_head, and the tail-weighted mean p_tail. In the Stream-advantage regime (p_head > p* but p_tail < p*), the downstream agent is best off starting from

What would settle it

Measure the per-step correctness profile p_1,...,p_S on each benchmark by scoring intermediate reasoning steps, estimate the breakeven threshold p* from small head/tail perturbation experiments, and check whether most questions fall in the Stream-advantage regime. A concrete negative result would be a benchmark where p_tail > p*, so Theorem 1 predicts Serial (or Single) should beat Stream; finding such a benchmark where Stream still wins would falsify the mechanism, while confirming the profile would corroborate it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the timing of inter-agent communication is a first-class design axis in multi-agent reasoning. By shifting the transmission unit from complete responses to individual reasoning steps, the Stream protocol pipelines adjacent agents: downstream agents begin reasoning on a prefix while upstream agents continue generating. The counter-intuitive part is effectiveness: because LLM reasoning quality decays with position, early steps being reliable and later steps degrading, a downstream agent conditioned on a reliable prefix can outperform one forced to ingest the error-prone tail. Theorem 1 formalizes exactly when this happens: comparing head- and tail-weighted ste

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on two linked premises: that on the target tasks early reasoning steps are systematically more reliable than later ones (p_head > p* and p_tail < p*), and that the theoretical proxy 'step-level correctness' tracks final-answer accuracy; if either fails — e.g., a task where later steps are more reliable — the predicted ordering inverts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the same prompts, models, and topology run measurably better simply by changing when context is delivered; communication timing becomes a tuning knob.
  • The step-level scaling law implies per-agent step count is a new scaling axis, composable with agent-count scaling: raising steps per agent from 2 to 64 adds accuracy beyond what agent-count scaling alone provides.
  • Theorem 1 doubles as a protocol selector: given a measured step-correctness profile, a practitioner can choose Stream, Serial, or Single in closed form.
  • The speedup bound AS/(S+A−1) shows pipelining gains grow with both agent count and step count, approaching A as S grows large.
  • The cost theorem predicts streaming is cheaper than serial under decode-dominated pricing with prefix-cache hits, and more expensive without caching, so infrastructure choices determine whether the protocol saves money.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The head-strong/tail-weak premise could be tested cheaply on any new dataset by scoring intermediate steps; if a task instead shows later steps more reliable (self-correction), the theorem predicts Serial should win, making the framework a usable diagnostic rather than a universal recipe.
  • The same 'early reliable, late degraded' structure appears in human expert pipelines, hierarchical planning, and staged code generation, so streaming partial artifacts may transfer beyond LLM multi-agent systems.
  • The step-level scaling law suggests an automatic controller could adapt per-agent step count per question to balance cost and accuracy; the paper reports the law but leaves the adaptive allocation problem open.
  • The bridge between the theoretical proxy sCorr and measured final-answer accuracy is asserted, not proved; if the correlation is weak on some benchmark, the theorem's quantitative ordering could diverge from observed task accuracy.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces StreamMA, a multi-agent reasoning protocol in which each agent streams its reasoning steps to downstream agents as soon as they are generated, rather than waiting for a complete response. The authors claim this both reduces latency and improves final-answer effectiveness, because early reasoning steps tend to be more reliable than later ones and downstream agents benefit from forming their own trajectory before error-prone late steps arrive. The theoretical contribution is a closed-form analysis: Theorem 1 classifies six regimes under which Stream, Serial, or Single has the highest step-level correctness, Theorem 2 derives a speedup upper bound, and Theorem 3 derives a cost ratio. Empirically, the paper reports gains over Serial on eight benchmarks, two LLMs, and three topologies (average +7.3 pp on Claude Opus 4.6, up to +22.4 pp on HMMT 2026), a controlled step-perturbation experiment, and a step-level scaling law showing that increasing per-agent steps improves both accuracy and speedup.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper identifies a genuinely new design axis: when inter-agent context arrives matters, not just what context is exchanged. The first closed-form comparison of streaming, serial, and single-agent communication is a useful formal scaffold, and the perturbation experiment in Sec. 4.2.3 is a well-aimed attempt to isolate the head/tail asymmetry predicted by Theorem 1. The authors also make code and evaluation configurations available, which supports reproducibility. However, the empirical support for the headline effectiveness claim is currently confounded: the Stream and Serial conditions differ in prompt structure and in the number of downstream calls, not only in transmission granularity. The theorem's regime variables are post-hoc constructions, and the bridge between the theoretical step-level quantity sCorr and the measured final-answer accuracy is never quantified. These issues affect the load-bearing empirical and theoretical claims and need to be addressed before the paper's conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 vs App. A.9] The assertion that Stream and Serial differ 'only in transmission granularity' (Sec. 4.1) is contradicted by the paper's own prompts (App. A.9). The Stream system prompt for agent A adds 'Divide your response into 3 roughly equal parts. End each part (including the last) with END_STEP...' and each downstream agent receives 'After your response, output END_STEP on its own line' in the Stream condition only. Explicit step decomposition is a formatting/reasoning intervention that can affect quality independently of timing. In addition, Alg. 2 gives each downstream agent S incremental calls with growing context, whereas Alg. 1 uses a single blocking call; the gain could come from iterative per-step prompting rather than from receiving early steps before late steps exist. The perturbation experiment (Sec. 4.2.3) does control step content, but it is one hand-constructed GPQA question and canno
  2. [App. A.2.2, Theorem 1] The definitions of p_head, p_bar, and p_tail are 'not prescribed a priori but derived from the proof below' (App. A.2.2 Remark). Consequently the six regimes in Theorem 1 are the sign conditions of identities (a)-(c) restated in weighted-mean notation. This makes the theorem consistent but weakens its predictive content: any observed sCorr ordering can be assigned post hoc to a regime. To make Theorem 1 empirically falsifiable, the paper should estimate p_j profiles from upstream traces independently and then test whether the predicted ordering holds, rather than deriving the regime boundaries from the same weighted sums that define the ordering.
  3. [App. A.2; Sec. 4.2] Theorem 1 is stated for sCorr, a 'theoretical quantity positively correlated with task-level accuracy' (App. A.2), but all headline experimental results are final-answer accuracies (Table 1). The paper never derives, measures, or quantifies this correlation. The case study in App. A.3 scores Agent1's steps but does not report sCorr for Agent2 or relate it to the final accuracy. Without this bridge, Theorem 1 does not logically support the accuracy numbers in Table 1. The authors should report sCorr alongside accuracy or provide a calibration of the proxy on the evaluated benchmarks.
  4. [Sec. 3.2 / App. A.2.3; Table 1] The paper's explanation of the benchmark results assumes that the eight evaluated tasks lie in the Stream-advantage regimes (Case I.a or I.b). The support for this is the assertion that these cases are 'the most frequently observed in our experiments' (App. A.2.3), backed by the error-accumulation result of Wu et al. (2025) and a direct measurement on exactly one GPQA question (App. A.3). No step-correctness profiles are measured on AIME, HMMT, HLE, or LiveCodeBench. If any benchmark is closer to Case II.b (self-correction) or Case III.b, Theorem 1 predicts Serial or Single should be better. The paper needs direct p_j measurements, or perturbation probes applied per benchmark, to establish that the observed regimes match the claimed cases.
  5. [Table 1; Sec. 4.2.1] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for any effectiveness table. For GPT-5.4 the average advantage over Serial is only +1.5 pp, and AIME 2025/26 and HMMT 2026 test sets are only 30-33 questions; a single question is several percentage points. Without variance estimates or per-run values, the claimed effect cannot be distinguished from noise, especially for the smaller GPT-5.4 gains. The authors should report standard deviations, per-run scores, or paired significance tests for the headline comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The Tree/Serial row for GPT-5.4 contains a spacing typo: '59.1775.8356.07' should be separated as '59.17 75.83 56.07'.
  2. [Throughout] The system name is inconsistent: 'StreamMA' in the title and abstract, 'STREAMMA' elsewhere. Please unify.
  3. [Sec. 4.3.1] Speedup is defined as 'the sum of per-agent API call times divided by Stream's measured wall-clock runtime.' This is a proxy for Serial wall-clock time, not an actual Serial measurement. The paper should state this explicitly, since it affects how the 26.9× figure is interpreted.
  4. [App. A.3 / A.4] The perturbation study and case study use a single GPQA question. Please state more prominently in Sec. 4.2.3 that this is one hand-constructed example, not a benchmark-level evaluation.
  5. [App. A.9] The prompt appendix is clear and useful, but the 'bolded text' notation is not visible in the rendered text. Please indicate the Stream-only additions with brackets or color that survives typesetting.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Theorem 1's stream-advantage regime is reverse-engineered from the sCorr identities, so the effectiveness explanation partly reduces to an assumed step-correctness profile; the Stream-vs-Serial comparison also includes a prompt confound.

  1. self definitional [App. A.2.2, Remark after Theorem 1; Sec. 3.2]
    "These variables are not prescribed a priori but derived from the proof below; their parametric definitions (Tab. 2) absorb the resulting coefficients."

    The proof derives sCorr differences as (a)=(S+1)/2[(δ+ε)p_head−ε], (b)=S[(δ+ε)p̄−ε], (c)=(S−1)/2[(δ+ε)p_tail−ε], then enumerates the six cases by the signs of (a)–(c). Thus Case I ('Stream advantage') is defined as p_head>p* and p_tail<p*, which is exactly the condition making sCorr_stream exceed the other modes. The theorem does not independently predict when streaming wins; it restates the weighted-mean definitions. The paper then explains the benchmark +7.3 pp by asserting (App. A.2.3) that real profiles are 'Cases I.a and I.b', verified on only one GPQA question (App. A.3), not measured on the eight benchmarks. The explanation therefore reduces to assuming the very regime that produces the observed ordering.

full rationale

The algebra in App. A.2.1 is internally correct, but Theorem 1's regime taxonomy is constructed by inverting identities (a)–(c), and the paper's own remark concedes the regime variables are derived from the proof rather than prescribed independently. The theorem is therefore a rearrangement of the definitions rather than an empirical prediction. The bridge from sCorr to final-answer accuracy is also asserted without derivation ('sCorr is positively correlated with task-level accuracy'), so the ordering result does not by itself certify the Table 1 gains. Separately, Sec. 4.1's statement that StreamMA 'inherit[s] Serial's prompts and decoding, differing only in transmission granularity' is contradicted by App. A.9, where the Stream root prompt adds 'Divide your response into 3 roughly equal parts. End each part (including the last) with END_STEP' and downstream agents receive an END_STEP instruction. That is a confound for the headline effectiveness claim, though it is an experimental validity issue rather than a circular derivation. The efficiency theorems (2 and 3) are derived from stated serving parameters and measured API constants, with no fitted-input circularity. On balance, the effectiveness explanation has a partial definitional circularity, while latency and cost analyses are self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All the theorems' load-bearing content sits upstream of the measurements: Theorem 1's regime partition is defined by δ and ε, which are never estimated numerically (so p* is never instantiated), and its 'explanation' of the headline accuracy gain assumes — without measurement on the eight benchmarks — that real trajectories are head-strong/tail-weak. Theorems 2–3 rest on equal-step-length and cache-regime assumptions that are stated but not validated. No invented entities (particles, forces, dimensions) appear; Stream is a protocol, not a postulated entity. The single genuinely independent check of the theory is the perturbation flip experiment, which probes both the Stream-advantage and the Serial/Single-advantage regimes.

free parameters (4)
  • δ (per-correct-step correctness gain) = not estimated (symbolic throughout)
    Defines, with ε, the threshold p* = ε/(δ+ε) that partitions Theorem 1's six regimes. Never fitted or measured, so all regime claims are qualitative.
  • ε (per-incorrect-step correctness loss) = not estimated (symbolic throughout)
    Same as δ; p* is never instantiated numerically anywhere in the paper, including the GPQA case study.
  • p_j (per-step correctness profiles of the eight benchmarks) = measured on 1 GPQA question; hand-built in 6 masks
    The explanation of the headline result — benchmarks lie in the Case-I Stream-advantage regime — depends on these profiles, but they are never measured on the benchmarks whose Table-1 numbers are being explained.
  • ρ (Stream-to-Serial output-token length ratio) = assumed 1 in the worked example; never measured
    Theorem 3's cost ratio is ρ × (...) ; the headline 7.5% saving uses ρ=1, while the no-cache formula flips to a 37.5% penalty, so the cost conclusion depends on an unmeasured ratio plus an assumed cache regime.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Each upstream step's effect on downstream step-level correctness is linear and additive: correct step adds δ, incorrect step subtracts ε, with δ, ε position-independent (µ_j = p_jδ − (1−p_j)ε)
    App. A.2.1. This is the entire content of Theorem 1; real step interactions are not shown to be additive, and δ, ε are never estimated, so the theorem's ordering is about a model quantity, not measured reasoning.
  • domain assumption sCorr (mean step-level correctness of the downstream agent) is positively correlated with task-level accuracy
    App. A.2 opening. The bridge between the theorem's object and the benchmark accuracies in Table 1 is asserted, never derived or quantified; all empirical 'validation' of Theorem 1 measures final answers, not sCorr.
  • domain assumption Real trajectories on the eight benchmarks are head-strong/tail-weak (p_head > p*, p_tail < p*), placing them in the Stream-advantage cases of Theorem 1
    Sec. 3.2, A.2.3. Justified by the error-accumulation result of Wu et al. (2025), but directly measured only on one GPQA question (App. A.3); the eight benchmarks' profiles are never scored, so the theory's regime premise for the headline +7.3 pp is unverified.
  • domain assumption LLMs reliably emit parseable END_STEP-delimited reasoning steps, and each step is approximately equal-length
    Protocol viability (Alg. 2 line 7) and the closed forms of Theorems 2–3 (O_a ≈ S·Ō, C_a^s = P̄ + (2s−1)Ō, App. A.5) both presuppose this; no failure or parse-error analysis is reported.
  • domain assumption KV-cache behavior is captured by hit rates h_a^s, and a full-cache regime (h=1 for non-root agents) is achievable on current serving stacks
    The cost advantage (Theorem 3: 7.5% saving at ρ=1) requires the full-cache regime; the same formula gives a 37.5% cost penalty when cache is absent. The paper states cache infrastructure is maturing but measures no h_a^s.
  • domain assumption Cited external serving parameters are accurate (v_d ≈ 39 t/s, v_p ≈ 6000 t/s; prices $5/$25/$0.50 per MTok)
    Numerical examples in App. A.5–A.6 and the Fig. 5 Pareto numbers rest on these third-party figures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Streaming Communication in Multi-Agent Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FDVJ3IQG

@misc{pith2026260605158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Streaming Communication in Multi-Agent Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FDVJ3IQG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.05158}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-agent reasoning systems adopt a "generate-then-transfer" paradigm that forces end-to-end latency to scale linearly with pipeline depth. We introduce StreamMA, a multi-agent reasoning system that streams each reasoning step to downstream agents as soon as it is generated, pipelining adjacent agents and thus reducing latency. Surprisingly, this pipelining also improves effectiveness: because multi-step reasoning quality is non-uniform and early steps are more reliable than later ones, working with these reliable early steps instead of the full chain prevents error-prone late steps from misleading downstream agents. We formalize both advantages with the first closed-form joint analysis of stream, serial, and single protocols, deriving the effectiveness ordering, speedup upper bound, and cost ratio. Across eight reasoning benchmarks spanning mathematics, science, and code, two frontier LLMs (Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4), and three topologies (Chain, Tree, Graph), StreamMA outperforms both baselines (avg. +7.3 pp, max +22.4 pp on HMMT 2026; Claude Opus 4.6-high). Beyond these contributions, we discover a "step-level scaling law": increasing per-agent steps consistently improves both effectiveness and efficiency, a new scaling dimension orthogonal to and composable with agent-count scaling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05158 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Communication protocols. (a) Serial: the downstream agent receives the upstream agent’s com￾plete response before execution. (b) Stream: the down￾stream agent receives each upstream reasoning step as it is generated, enabling pipelined execution. existing frameworks share the same communica￾tion assumption: an upstream agent must finish its entire response before passing it downstream. This “generate-then-transfer” … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Case study for Theorem 1. (a) Verdicts of Agent1 (✓: pj=1; ×: pj=0). (b) p/p ¯ head/ptail place this run in Case I.b, the Stream-advantage regime. Step-Level Perturbation Setup: Agent1→Agent2 chain, S=4 steps Probe: perturb Agent1 ’s steps ( clean / perturbed) Outcome: Agent2 acc: Serial / Stream Agent1 steps Agent2 accuracy (%) Theorem 1 Case I — tail perturbed Theorem 1 Case II/III — head perturbed 67.0 91.0 +24.0… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Step-level scaling law. Left: speedup scaling in S; measured (solid) vs. theoretical maximum speedup AS/(S+A−1) from Theorem 2 (dashed). Right: accuracy scaling in S, with avg marginals (main block boxed). 70 80 90 1 4 16 1 4 Accuracy (%) Serial×N Stream×N (h=0) Stream×N (h=1) Single 0.3 0.5 1 2 3 6 48 Per-question cost (USD) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cost–accuracy Pareto frontiers. Each fron￾tier tracks accuracy vs. cost as N ∈ {1, 4, 16} chain replicas run in parallel and majority-vote on the final answer; larger N trades higher compute for higher accu￾racy. Red shaded: KV-cache hit rate h∈(0, 1), bounded by Strea…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Six canonical step-correctness profiles pj , 1 ≤ j ≤ S (solid lines) relative to the breakeven threshold p ∗ (dashed line), corresponding to the six cases of Theorem 1, organized into three advantage regimes (columns). Left column (Stream-advantage): Case I.a (top), Ca…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    ERROR: [description]

    YOU MUST CORRECT ERRORS: When found, state “ERROR: [description]” then “CORRECTION: [corrected step]”

  2. [2]

    After all steps, provide DETAILED overall summary with thorough analysis and any corrections made

    Pass forward the MOST ACCURATE version (original if correct, your correction if not). After all steps, provide DETAILED overall summary with thorough analysis and any corrections made. [Stream only] After your response, output END_STEP on its own line. C [Topology: Chain A→B→C→D] You are Agent_C. You receive Agent_B’s output. You are a reviewer-and-correc...

  3. [3]

    InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 39578–39601

    Let’s verify step by step. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 39578–39601. Yuhan Liu, Yuyang Huang, Jiayi Yao, Shaoting Feng, Zhuohan Gu, Kuntai Du, Hanchen Li, Yihua Cheng, Junchen Jiang, Shan Lu, Madan Musuvathi, and Esha Choukse. 2026. Droidspeak: KV cache sharing across fine-tuned model variants. In23rd USENIX S...

    arXiv 2024

  4. [5]

    InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 9426–9439

    Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step- by-step without human annotations. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 9426–9439. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V . Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought p...

    arXiv 2022

  5. [6]

    Hancheng Ye, Zhengqi Gao, Mingyuan Ma, Qinsi Wang, Yuzhe Fu, Ming-Yu Chung, Yueqian Lin, Zhijian Liu, Jianyi Zhang, Danyang Zhuo, and Yiran Chen

    Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:11809–11822. Hancheng Ye, Zhengqi Gao, Mingyuan Ma, Qinsi Wang, Yuzhe Fu, Ming-Yu Chung, Yueqian Lin, Zhijian Liu, Jianyi Zhang, Danyang Zhuo, and Yiran Chen. 2025a. KVCOMM: online cross-context kv-cache communication for efficient...

    arXiv

  6. [7]

    two methine protons, each coupling to three different sets of neighboring hydrogens

    Exchange-of-thought: Enhancing large lan- guage model capabilities through cross-model com- munication. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, pages 15135–15153. Jiayi Zhang, Jinyu Xiang, Zhaoyang Yu, Fengwei Teng, Xionghui Chen, Jiaqi Chen, Mingchen Zhuge, Xin Cheng, Sirui Hong, Jinlin Wang, Bingnan Zh...

    2023

  7. [8]

    The original problem is:

    Prefix caching, as a special case of (2)( rpo ≈0 , ha s = 1 for a≥2 , h1 s = 0 ): App. A.5 gives α≈1/Aandβ≈(A−1)S/A. Substituting into condition (2) withr po ≈0: 1 A +r ccp · (A−1)S A <1⇐ ⇒1 +r ccp(A−1)S < A⇐ ⇒rccp S <1. Numerical Example: Cost Ratio withA=S= 4(Claude Opus 4.6 Pricing) To give intuition for Eq. 14, we instantiate it with Claude Opus 4.6 p...

    2023

  8. [11]

    ERROR: [description]

    YOU CAN OVERRULE PREVIOUS AGENTS: When you find errors, state “ERROR: [description]” then “CORRECTION: [corrected step]”

Show all 14 references
  1. [12]

    After all steps, provide DETAILED overall summary with thorough analysis and any corrections made

    Pass forward the MOST ACCURATE version. After all steps, provide DETAILED overall summary with thorough analysis and any corrections made. [Stream only] After your response, output END_STEP on its own line. D [Topology: Chain A→B→C→D] You are Agent_D. You receive Agent_C’s out...

  2. [13]

    ERROR: [description]

    YOU HAVE FINAL CORRECTION AUTHORITY: This is the last chance to fix errors. State “ERROR: [description]” then “CORRECTION: [corrected step]”

  3. [14]

    You receive . . . output

    You are responsible for final answer accuracy. FINAL ANSWER: Must directly address the original problem. Base on CORRECTED versions. After all steps, provide DETAILED final answer with thorough analysis. [Stream only] After your response, output END_STEP on its own line. Tree ...

    2025

  4. [2023]

    InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 19274–19286

    Fast inference from transformers via spec- ulative decoding. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 19274–19286. PMLR. Guohao Li, Hasan Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Bernard Ghanem. 2023. Camel: Communicative agents for" mind" exploration of large...

    2023 arXiv

  5. [2024]

    Break the sequential dependency of llm in- ference using lookahead decoding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02057. Sirui Hong, Mingchen Zhuge, Jonathan Chen, Xiawu Zheng, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, Chenyu Ran, Lin...

    2024 arXiv

  6. [2025]

    InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025

    Scaling large language model-based multi- agent collaboration. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025. OpenReview.net. David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jack- son Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang,...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.