Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 6 cited by

Scaling Test-time Compute for LLM Agents

T0 review · 4 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 Test-time scaling works for tool-calling agents when a list-wise judge picks the best rollout.

desk verdict Useful first systematic pass at agentic test-time scaling: the BoN headline holds, but the list-wise advantage is conditional on an unvalidated LLM judge. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12928 v1 pith:7CRPBYN7 submitted 2025-06-15 cs.AI

King Zhu , Hanhao Li , Siwei Wu , Tianshun Xing , Dehua Ma , Xiangru Tang , Minghao Liu , Jian Yang
show 7 more authors
Jiaheng Liu Yuchen Eleanor Jiang Changwang Zhang Chenghua Lin Jun Wang Ge Zhang Wangchunshu Zhou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords test-timecomputeLLMagentsbest-of-Nprocessrewardmodellist-wiseverificationreflectionmulti-agentGAIAbenchmark
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 asks whether test-time scaling—the practice of spending extra compute at inference time to lift LLM performance—also works for language agents that call tools and search the web, not just for models that answer in one pass. It argues that it does, and that the way the extra attempts are merged matters more than the search strategy itself. The central empirical claim is that a list-wise judge, which compares all candidate trajectories at once and picks the best, outperforms scoring each trajectory or majority voting, and that Best-of-N sampling with this judge lifts the average GAIA score from 55.76 to 63.03. Two further findings are that selective reflection beats reflection at every step, and that mixing different LLMs as rollout models beats a single model alone. If true, the demonstration turns test-time scaling into a practical lever for agentic systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the agentic test-time scaling scaffold, which wraps a tool-calling agent with four plug-in mechanisms. The load-bearing piece is the list-wise PRM: an LLM-as-judge that receives all N candidate trajectories at once and returns the index of the most promising one, as opposed to a scoring PRM that rates each trajectory independently or majority voting that takes the most frequent answer. The reflection agent, which summarizes and revises only when a threshold-triggered score is low, is a second mechanism; it supplies the 'when to reflect' result. Multi-agent rollout with several distinct LLMs supplies the diversification result.

What would settle it

On the GAIA validation set, measure agreement between each judge's chosen candidate and the ground-truth answer for both list-wise and scoring judges; if list-wise agreement is no better than scoring once answer length and verbosity are controlled, or if replacing the judge with oracle selection does not reproduce the list-wise advantage, the central claim about list-wise superiority collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that four families of test-time scaling strategies—parallel sampling, sequential revision, verification and merging, and rollout diversification—transfer from end-to-end LLM reasoning to agentic frameworks, and that among them the list-wise verification and merging method is the most effective. Concretely, Best-of-N reaches 63.03 average on GAIA against a 55.76 baseline, BoN-wise reaches 58.79 and is best on the hardest level, and list-wise selection outperforms scoring and voting in both Best-of-N and beam-search settings. The authors interpret this as evidence that the limiting factor is not the width of the search but the quality of the selection signal: comparing candidates directly gives the judge a reference standard, whereas scoring in isolation and majority voting both lose information.

Load-bearing premise

All measured gains rest on the assumption that the LLM judge that picks the best trajectory is itself reliable and unbiased, yet the paper never checks the judge's selections against ground-truth answers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For agent benchmarks such as GAIA, Best-of-N with a list-wise judge becomes a strong default: roughly 7 points over the baseline at sampling width 4.
  • Step-wise sampling (BoN-wise) buys more on level-3 difficulty, where per-step exploration matters, so the right parallel strategy depends on task difficulty.
  • Reflection should be applied selectively, not at every step; frequent introspection actively hurts mid-complexity tasks.
  • Mixing several base models as rollout generators beats a single model at the same total pass count, reaching 74.55 pass@4.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the reported advantage of list-wise over scoring may reflect the judge's bias (for example, toward verbose or plausible-looking outputs) rather than an intrinsic property of the merge method; testing list-wise against ground-truth-optimal selection would settle this.
  • Inference: if the judge is the bottleneck, improving or training the judge, rather than widening the search, should give the largest further gains on agentic tasks.
  • Inference: the list-wise mechanism transfers to any system that generates multiple candidate pipelines or plans, not just web-browsing agents, so it could serve as a generic merge operator for agent pipelines.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper empirically studies test-time scaling (TTS) for LLM agents on the GAIA benchmark, comparing parallel sampling (BoN, BoN-wise, Beam-Search, DVTS), sequential reflection with score thresholds, verifier/result-merging methods (voting, scoring, list-wise), and rollout diversification via multiple LLMs. The main claims are that BoN improves over baseline, selective reflection helps, list-wise merging/verification is best, and increasing rollout diversity improves performance. The authors report BoN reaching 63.03 vs 55.76 baseline on GAIA, list-wise outperforming scoring and voting, and pass@k gains from mixing GPT-4.1 with other models.

Significance. If the findings are robust, the paper provides a useful systematic empirical comparison of TTS strategies adapted to agentic frameworks, a relatively underexplored area. It also releases code, which supports reproducibility. However, the central quantitative claims rest on small point estimates from a 165-question benchmark, on an LLM judge whose correctness is never validated, and on a threshold chosen on the same validation set used for evaluation. The paper's practical guidance about which merging and verification methods to use would be valuable, but the current evidence does not yet rule out judge bias or noise as alternative explanations for the reported ordering.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3, Tables 3 and 5] The list-wise advantage over scoring and voting is not established because the LLM judge used for selection is never validated against ground truth. The scoring PRM and list-wise PRM are defined as 'LLM as Reward Model' but the paper reports no agreement between the judge's choices and GAIA's correct answers. The oracle bound in Table 5 (pass@4 = 69.14 for GPT-4.1-only) is 6 points above the BoN+list-wise score (63.03), and the list-wise-vs-scoring gap in Table 3 is only 3.64 points. Without an oracle-selection control or per-question judge accuracy, the apparent superiority of list-wise could reflect judge bias (e.g., toward verbose or confident outputs) rather than a general property of the merging method. This is load-bearing for Finding 3.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 2] Finding 2 is not supported because the selective-reflection threshold (<2) is chosen after inspecting results on the same GAIA validation set used to report the final numbers, and the reported gain over baseline is 56.36 vs 55.76, i.e., one question out of 165. The text further claims that Threshold(<2) 'outperforms other strategies across all levels,' but Table 2 shows Level 2 below baseline (55.81 vs 58.14) and Level 3 tied with baseline (26.92). Without error bars or repeated runs, the selective-reflection result is statistically indistinguishable from noise.
  3. [Section 3.1, Tables 3 and 4] The paper's treatment of Tree-Search is inconsistent and the related claims are unsupported. Table 1 reports DVTS, while Table 4 reports 'Tree-Search' without defining it, and Section 3.1 lists 'Treesearch' without specifying whether it is DVTS or a separate algorithm. Section 4.3 states that list-wise outperforms other merging methods for BoN, Beam-Search, and Tree Search, but Table 3 shows only BoN and Beam-Search rows. The Tree-Search results in Table 4 therefore cannot be verified, and the text overclaims.
  4. [Tables 1-4 and Figure 3] All experimental comparisons are presented as point estimates without confidence intervals, standard errors, or multiple seeded runs. On a 165-question benchmark, differences such as Beam-Search vs baseline (56.97 vs 55.76) and Reflection vs baseline (55.15 vs 55.76) are within the resolution of a single question. The absence of uncertainty quantification makes it impossible to assess whether the reported effects, including the BoN gain of 7.27 points and the list-wise gain over scoring of 3.64 points, are statistically significant or reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.3] The equations for scoring PRM and list-wise PRM are identical (Si = RM(T current_i)), which is incorrect for list-wise PRM since that method returns a selected index rather than a per-step score; the notation should distinguish the two protocols.
  2. [Table 1] The model family column contains a garbled entry 'etclet@tokeneonedot' that appears to be a LaTeX error; the intended content is presumably 'Claude-3-7 etc.' or 'OpenAI o1 etc.' and should be fixed.
  3. [Section 2.1] The abbreviations 'BoN-wise', 'BON', and 'BoN-Wise' are used inconsistently; please unify to a single spelling throughout.
  4. [Section 4.2] The description of Threshold(<2) says it 'outperforms other strategies across all levels,' but the table shows Level 2 and Level 3 are not always above baseline; the wording should be corrected to match the data.
  5. [Section 1 and Related Work] The paper claims to be the 'first systematic exploration' of test-time scaling for agents but does not discuss related agentic TTS works such as Tree Search for Language Model Agents (Koh et al., 2024) in detail; the novelty claim should be softened or substantiated with a direct comparison.
  6. [Appendix, PRM-list Evaluation Prompt] The list-wise judge is asked to select 'the best trajectory' without any instruction to verify factual correctness against the task; consider adding an explicit correctness-checking requirement or validation of the judge's choices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical ablation on the external GAIA benchmark with no fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's claims are empirical comparisons measured against an external benchmark (GAIA validation set, 165 samples), so the main findings do not reduce by construction to the paper's own inputs. Best-of-N, list-wise merging, selective reflection, and diversified rollouts are all evaluated by final task accuracy on GAIA, which is independent of the method definitions. The list-wise method is not defined as 'whatever the judge prefers'; it is a merging procedure whose output is scored against ground truth, so the comparison with voting and scoring is not forced by definition. The LLM-based PRM/judge is an implementation choice whose quality is not validated against ground truth, which is a validity threat and a possible confound, but it is not circular: the judge is not a fitted parameter, and no equation in the paper defines one claimed result in terms of another. The reflection thresholds (<8, <5, <2) are ablation settings chosen by the authors, not parameters fitted to data and then renamed as predictions. Self-citations in the related work (AGENTS, RecurrentGPT, the o1 comparative study) are descriptive and do not carry the weight of the paper's central conclusions. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities are postulated. The ledger records the LLM-judge reliability assumption, the single-run GAIA stability assumption, the representativeness of the chosen agent scaffold, and the post-hoc selected reflection threshold.

free parameters (1)
  • reflection score threshold = <2 (selected as best among <8, <5, <2)
    The 'when to reflect' finding depends on choosing the best of three hand-picked score thresholds after observing validation performance; the threshold is effectively fitted to the GAIA validation set.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LLM-as-judge PRM and list-wise selection provide a reliable, unbiased signal for ranking agent rollouts.
    Invoked in Section 2.3 (scoring PRM, list-wise PRM) and the appendix judge prompts; no validation of judge choices against ground truth, yet all selection-based gains rely on this.
  • domain assumption A single run on the 165-question GAIA validation set is a stable enough estimator to compare methods.
    All tables report one score per condition with no error bars; differences of a few points are interpreted as effects. See Tables 1 to 5.
  • domain assumption SmoLAgents CodeAgent with GPT-4.1 is a representative agent setup for generalizing the findings.
    The main experiments use one scaffold and one base model; the reflection and merging claims are not validated across agent scaffolds or across multiple base models except in the pass@K table.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling Test-time Compute for LLM Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7CRPBYN7

@misc{pith2026250612928,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling Test-time Compute for LLM Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7CRPBYN7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12928}
}
read the original abstract

Scaling test time compute has shown remarkable success in improving the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). In this work, we conduct the first systematic exploration of applying test-time scaling methods to language agents and investigate the extent to which it improves their effectiveness. Specifically, we explore different test-time scaling strategies, including: (1) parallel sampling algorithms; (2) sequential revision strategies; (3) verifiers and merging methods; (4)strategies for diversifying rollouts.We carefully analyze and ablate the impact of different design strategies on applying test-time scaling on language agents, and have follow findings: 1. Scaling test time compute could improve the performance of agents. 2. Knowing when to reflect is important for agents. 3. Among different verification and result merging approaches, the list-wise method performs best. 4. Increasing diversified rollouts exerts a positive effect on the agent's task performance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. CurveShift: Is Agent Progress Scalar? Separating Level from Shape

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A single rising-ability model explains most apparent AI gains on hard tasks; a smaller real hard-item gain remains in no-scaffold competitive programming.

  2. CRISP: Critical Step Perception for Training Efficient Deep Search Agents

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CRISP rewards deep search agents for preserving evidence-critical tool steps and pruning redundant ones, cutting turns by 15.1% on BrowseComp and 33.2% on HLE-Verified with comparable accuracy.

  3. Cognitive Demand Steering for Adaptive Meta-Reasoning in Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A training-free meta-reasoning loop that tracks remaining cognitive demand and steers an LLM's next action improves average accuracy by about 9 percent over chain-of-thought across three models and six benchmarks.

  4. Rethinking Self-Evolving Agent Skills: Feedback Dynamics over Multiple Rounds

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Persistent agent skill evolution is sparse, validation-filtered search whose gains depend strongly on model, benchmark, and which feedback (failures versus successes) is shown.

  5. SSRL: Self-Search Reinforcement Learning

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    SSRL, a training pipeline that uses an LLM's own repeated sampling as a search environment for RL, improves question answering without external tools and transfers to real search engines.

  6. Chain-of-Agents: End-to-End Agent Foundation Models via Multi-Agent Distillation and Agentic RL

    cs.AI 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A single LLM is trained with multi-agent distilled trajectories plus agentic RL, and the resulting Chain-of-Agents models set state-of-the-art Pass@1 scores among tool-integrated reasoning methods on GAIA, BrowseComp,...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    L. AI. Open deep research: A fully open-source research assistant, 2025. URLhttps://github.com/langchain-ai/ open_deep_research

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Bahdanau, N

    D. Bahdanau, N. Gontier, G. Huang, E. Kamalloo, R. Pardinas, A. Piché, T. Scholak, O. Shliazhko, J. P. Tremblay, K. Ghanem, S. Parikh, M. Tiwari, and Q. Vohra. Tapeagents: a holistic framework for agent development and optimization, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2412.08445

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Beeching, L

    E. Beeching, L. Tunstall, and S. Rush. Scaling test-time compute with open models, 2024. URL https: //huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/blogpost-scaling-test-time-compute

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    X. Chen, G. Li, Z. Wang, B. Jin, C. Qian, Y. Wang, H. Wang, Y. Zhang, D. Zhang, T. Zhang, et al. Rm-r1: Reward modeling as reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02387, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    H. Face. Smolagent: A scalable approach to multi-agent systems, 2025. URLhttps://github.com/huggingface/ smolagents

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Faria and N

    G. Faria and N. A. Smith. Sample, don’t search: Rethinking test-time alignment for language models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.03790

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Fourney, G

    A. Fourney, G. Bansal, H. Mozannar, C. Tan, E. Salinas, E. E. Zhu, F. Niedtner, G. Proebsting, G. Bassman, J. Gerrits, J. Alber, P. Chang, R. Loynd, R. West, V. Dibia, A. Awadallah, E. Kamar, R. Hosn, and S. Amershi. Magentic-one: A generalist multi-agent system for solving complex tasks, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2411.04468

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    D. Guo, D. Yang, H. Zhang, J. Song, R. Zhang, R. Xu, Q. Zhu, S. Ma, P. Wang, X. Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    arXiv 2025

Show all 32 references
  1. [10]

    S. Hong, M. Zhuge, J. Chen, X. Zheng, Y. Cheng, C. Zhang, J. Wang, Z. Wang, S. K. S. Yau, Z. Lin, L. Zhou, C. Ran, L. Xiao, C. Wu, and J. Schmidhuber. Metagpt: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00352

    2024 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Jaech, A

    A. Jaech, A. Kalai, A. Lerer, A. Richardson, A. El-Kishky, A. Low, A. Helyar, A. Madry, A. Beutel, A. Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [12]

    J. Y. Koh, R. Lo, L. Jang, V. Duvvur, M. C. Lim, P.-Y. Huang, G. Neubig, S. Zhou, R. Salakhutdinov, and D. Fried. Visualwebarena: Evaluating multimodal agents on realistic visual web tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13649, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [13]

    J. Y. Koh, S. McAleer, D. Fried, and R. Salakhutdinov. Tree search for language model agents, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01476

    2024

  5. [14]

    Kumar, V

    A. Kumar, V. Zhuang, R. Agarwal, Y. Su, J. D. Co-Reyes, A. Singh, K. Baumli, S. Iqbal, C. Bishop, R. Roelofs, et al. Training language models to self-correct via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12917, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [15]

    M. H. Y. Z. W. F. Y. N. B. X. T. S. Z. Y. Z. J. Y. L. Z. Z. Y. W. Q. Y. P. L. G. Li. Owl: Optimized workforce learning for general multi-agent assistance in real-world task automation, 2025. URLhttps://github.com/camel-ai/owl

    2025

  7. [16]

    X. Li, G. Dong, J. Jin, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Y. Zhu, P. Zhang, and Z. Dou. Search-o1: Agentic search-enhanced large reasoning models, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2501.05366

    2025 arXiv

  8. [17]

    X. Li, J. Jin, G. Dong, H. Qian, Y. Zhu, Y. Wu, J.-R. Wen, and Z. Dou. Webthinker: Empowering large reasoning models with deep research capability, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21776

    2025 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Liang, J

    X. Liang, J. Xiang, Z. Yu, J. Zhang, S. Hong, S. Fan, and X. Tang. Openmanus: An open-source framework for building general ai agents, 2025. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15186407

    2025 doi

  10. [19]

    F. Liu, W. Chao, N. Tan, and H. Liu. Bag of tricks for inference-time computation of llm reasoning, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07191

    2025 arXiv

  11. [21]

    R. Liu, J. Gao, J. Zhao, K. Zhang, X. Li, B. Qi, W. Ouyang, and B. Zhou. Can 1b llm surpass 405b llm? rethinking compute-optimal test-time scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06703, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Mialon, C

    G. Mialon, C. Fourrier, T. Wolf, Y. LeCun, and T. Scialom. Gaia: a benchmark for general ai assistants. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  13. [23]

    C. Qian, E. C. Acikgoz, Q. He, H. Wang, X. Chen, D. Hakkani-Tür, G. Tur, and H. Ji. Toolrl: Reward is all tool learning needs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13958, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [24]

    repository

    L. repository. Langchain, 2022. URLhttps://github.com/langchain-ai/langchain

    2022

  15. [25]

    Snell, J

    C. Snell, J. Lee, K. Xu, and A. Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03314, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [26]

    J. Tang, T. Fan, and C. Huang. Autoagent: A fully-automated and zero-code framework for llm agents, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05957

    2025

  17. [27]

    S. Wu, Z. Peng, X. Du, T. Zheng, M. Liu, J. Wu, J. Ma, Y. Li, J. Yang, W. Zhou, et al. A comparative study on reasoning patterns of openai’s o1 model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13639, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [29]

    Y. Wu, Z. Sun, S. Li, S. Welleck, and Y. Yang. Inference scaling laws: An empirical analysis of compute-optimal inference for problem-solving with language models, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00724

    2025 arXiv

  19. [30]

    Z. Wu, C. Han, Z. Ding, Z. Weng, Z. Liu, S. Yao, T. Yu, and L. Kong. Os-copilot: Towards generalist computer agents with self-improvement, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07456

    2024 arXiv

  20. [31]

    Xiong, H

    W. Xiong, H. Zhang, C. Ye, L. Chen, N. Jiang, and T. Zhang. Self-rewarding correction for mathematical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19613, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [32]

    S. Zhou, F. F. Xu, H. Zhu, X. Zhou, R. Lo, A. Sridhar, X. Cheng, T. Ou, Y. Bisk, D. Fried, et al. Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13854, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [33]

    W. Zhou, Y. E. Jiang, P. Cui, T. Wang, Z. Xiao, Y. Hou, R. Cotterell, and M. Sachan. Recurrentgpt: Interactive generation of (arbitrarily) long text, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2305.13304

    2023 arXiv

  23. [34]

    W. Zhou, Y. E. Jiang, L. Li, J. Wu, T. Wang, S. Qiu, J. Zhang, J. Chen, R. Wu, S. Wang, S. Zhu, J. Chen, W. Zhang, X. Tang, N. Zhang, H. Chen, P. Cui, and M. Sachan. Agents: An open-source framework for autonomous language agents, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07870

    2023 arXiv

  24. [35]

    analysis

    W. Zhou, Y. Ou, S. Ding, L. Li, J. Wu, T. Wang, J. Chen, S. Wang, X. Xu, N. Zhang, H. Chen, and Y. E. Jiang. Symbolic learning enables self-evolving agents. 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18532. 13 8 Appendix PRM-score Evaluation Prompt Evaluation Guidelines: •Objective: ...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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