AutoChemSchematic AI: Agentic Physics-Aware Automation for Chemical Manufacturing Scale-Up

Sakhinana Sagar Srinivas; Shivam Gupta; Venkataramana Runkana

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 66 references

AutoChemSchematic AI: Agentic Physics-Aware Automation for Chemical Manufacturing Scale-Up

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 An AI framework claims to auto-generate manufacturing blueprints for novel chemicals, verified by physics simulation in the loop.

desk verdict A detailed and honest pipeline paper that overclaims 'simulator-validated' generation — the DWSIM evidence is two manually assembled flowsheets and the correctness metrics are LLM-against-LLM. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24584 v3 pith:57XXW3PY submitted 2025-05-30 cs.LG cs.AIcs.IR

Sakhinana Sagar Srinivas , Shivam Gupta , Venkataramana Runkana This is my paper

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.IR

keywords processflowdiagramspipingandinstrumentationsmalllanguagemodelsgraphretrieval-augmentedgenerationchemicalsimulationDWSIMvalidationsynthesisgapzero-shotgeneralization

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 takes on the 'synthesis gap': AI can propose new molecules, but turning them into industrial products requires Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) and Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (PIDs), blueprints that expert engineers normally draw by hand. The authors try to establish that a closed-loop framework can generate these schematics automatically: small fine-tuned language models produce textual PFD/PID descriptions, a curated knowledge graph of 1,020+ chemicals supplies retrieved context, and the open-source DWSIM simulator checks that the described process satisfies mass/energy balances and thermodynamics. They report high-fidelity, simulator-validated output that beats baseline methods and transfers to 100 chemicals held out of training. If the claim holds, it would shorten the path from laboratory discovery to pilot-plant manufacturing and move feasibility screening to the design stage.

What carries the argument

Three components carry the argument. First, the ChemAtlas knowledge graph: agentic web retrieval supplies process descriptions for 1,020+ chemicals; a teacher model turns text chunks into subject-predicate-object triples; entities are canonicalized by embedding and string similarity; and the Leiden algorithm partitions the graph into hierarchical communities so that retrieval can pick top-K communities and assemble a query-specific subgraph. Second, the small language models (one-billion and 135-million parameter open models), fine-tuned with QLoRA on 20,000 synthetic QA pairs spanning factual knowledge, schematic description, multi-step reasoning, preference pairs, and local/global retrieval-augmented instruction pairs, under either a sequential SFT-to-DPO-to-RAIT schedule or the GRPO reinforcement schedule. Third, DWSIM, the open-source process simulator that plays the physics-aware validator: generated PFD text is re-expressed as flowsheets whose material/energy balances and thermodynamic consistency are checked, and PID text is validated by implementing its control loops. Around these sit the inference stack (structural pruning, FlashAttention, PagedAttention with KV-cache quantization, Lookahead Decoding, and test-time scaling) and a critique agent that decides whether a draft is revised before release.

What would settle it

Feed a held-out chemical's generated PFD text directly into DWSIM through an automated script with no human editing and record whether the flowsheet converges to consistent material and energy balances; if manual rearrangement is needed before most simulations run, the closed-loop claim is not yet established. A second check would have an engineer who did not see the paper rebuild the flowsheet from the text and count how many corrections are required to reach a converged, energy-balanced simulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a small language model fine-tuned on synthetic process-engineering data, augmented by graph-based retrieval over curated chemical process knowledge, can write textual descriptions of PFDs and PIDs that survive first-principles simulation in DWSIM, for chemicals it has seen and, zero-shot, for chemicals it has not. Quality is measured against LLM-generated reference answers with n-gram overlaps, embedding similarity, and reward-model scores; the fine-tuned one-billion-parameter model is reported to sit just below GPT-4o on these axes while running far cheaper, and the fully augmented variant (fine-tuning plus graph retrieval plus critique feedback) outperforms every ablated configuration. The paper also claims that reinforcement fine-tuning (GRPO) generalizes better than the modular SFT-plus-DPO pipeline on held-out chemicals, and that test-time scaling with multiple sampled trajectories, confidence-weighted selection, self-reflective revision, and consensus voting raises factual correctness without retraining.

Load-bearing premise

The simulator-validation claim assumes that turning the generated text into a DWSIM simulation is an automatic link in the loop, but the paper's own captions for Figures 6 and 7 say the flowsheets were 'manually assembled' by people, so the demonstration depends on an unstated human in the loop.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a chemical not present in training, the framework claims to produce PFD and PID descriptions that pass DWSIM simulation, making zero-shot schematic generation a practical route for AI-discovered molecules.
Feasibility screening moves before the lab: the simulator flags equipment sizing errors, utility mismatches, and unsafe designs in generated descriptions instead of waiting for post-hoc checks.
Fine-tuning, graph retrieval, and critique feedback each contribute independently, and their combination beats every subset, while graph retrieval alone partially compensates for missing fine-tuning.
Pruning and the inference optimizations keep a one-billion-parameter model fast enough for practical use, and GRPO-trained variants generalize better on held-out chemicals than the sequential SFT pipeline.
Because retrieval retains source traces in the knowledge graph, generated schematics are in principle attributable to documented industrial processes rather than free invention.

Reading between the lines

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

A fair extension of the paper's own figure captions: the DWSIM flowsheets shown were manually assembled from the generated text, so the text is sufficient for an expert to build a working simulation; fully closing the loop would mean automating that translation, for example through a DWSIM scripting layer, and reporting convergence statistics without human edits.
Since the ChemEval reference answers are themselves written by large language models, an independent audit by process engineers on a sample of chemicals would anchor the reported correctness numbers to industrial practice.
If the loop holds, the same architecture can slide sideways to downstream engineering documents, equipment datasheets, control-loop tuning parameters, and safety-review notes, because they are all derived from the same PFD/PID descriptions.
A cheap probe of the zero-shot claim would be to generate descriptions for chemicals whose real plant flowsheets are public and compare unit counts, stream order, and operating conditions against the published diagrams.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a competent systems paper on a real problem — turning chemical process descriptions into PFD/PID text — and the authors build a substantial pipeline (knowledge graph, SLM fine-tuning, GRPO, ablation studies). But the central claim that the framework generates 'simulator-validated process descriptions' is not supported by the evidence. The DWSIM validation shown in Figures 6-9 is manual: the text-to-flowsheet translation is done by a human, and no convergence, balance, or control results are reported for even those two examples. The abstract should say 'text descriptions verified by a human in a simulator,' not 'simulator-validated.'

What is genuinely new: the application of Graph RAG with hierarchical communities to chemical process schematics, the multi-stage synthetic data pipeline (SynDIP, LogiCore, RAIT), and the GRPO comparison. These are competently executed and the ablations are thorough. The paper also tracks compute and carbon, which is more than many do. The citation pattern is appropriate; the authors cite the prior PFD/PID generation literature and their own earlier work where relevant.

The soft spots are real. The evaluation is largely circular: the training data comes from GPT-4o/Claude Haiku, and the ChemEval ground truth is also LLM-generated (the text says GPT-4o/Claude in one place, o3/o3-mini in another). So the NLP and reward-model scores measure how well the student imitates the teacher, not engineering correctness. No comparison against existing PFD/PID generation systems, and no artifacts released. The manual DWSIM step is acknowledged in the figure captions, so the paper is not being deceptive — but the abstract overstates the automation.

Who this is for: readers working on LLMs for process engineering, or anyone studying how far synthetic data + RAG can push small models in a technical domain. It is a reasonable preliminary systems contribution. A serious referee should see it, because the problem is real and the pipeline is detailed, but the evaluation needs major rework before the 'simulator-validated' claim can stand. I would send it to review with the expectation of heavy revision, not desk reject — the flaws are in claim calibration and missing baselines, not in the core engineering.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes AutoChemSchematic AI, a framework that combines small language models (Llama-3.2-1B, SmolLM2-135M) fine-tuned on synthetic QA datasets, a hierarchical knowledge graph for retrieval-augmented generation, inference optimizations (pruning, PagedAttention, Lookahead Decoding, test-time scaling), and the DWSIM process simulator to automatically generate text descriptions of PFDs and PIDs for chemical processes. The central claim is that the framework produces 'simulator-validated process descriptions' that outperform baselines and generalize to unseen chemicals. The experiments report reward-model and NLP-metric scores on a 100-chemical ChemEval benchmark, ablation studies over fine-tuning and GraphRAG components, inference-efficiency measurements, and two DWSIM-based case studies for nitric acid and sulfuric acid.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the framework would address a real bottleneck in chemical manufacturing scale-up: the automatic creation of industrially viable PFDs and PIDs for novel molecules. The authors provide a substantial methodological pipeline, including explicit descriptions of dataset construction, training protocols, graph construction, and carbon-cost accounting, and they are transparent about the manual assembly of DWSIM flowsheets in figure captions and about the use of teacher LLMs for benchmark ground truth. These disclosures are commendable, but they also expose two load-bearing weaknesses: the evaluation is largely circular (the same LLM families generate the training data, the benchmark references, and the scoring judgments), and the 'simulator-in-the-loop' validation reduces to two human-assembled flowsheets with no reported quantitative simulation results. The usefulness of the contribution therefore hinges on evidence that the current paper does not provide.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.2, Figures 6 and 7] The captions state that the DWSIM flowsheets were 'constructed in DWSIM based on textual outputs generated by our framework and manually assembled using DWSIM's unit operation blocks, thermodynamic models, and stream configuration tools.' This contradicts the closed-loop automation claim in the abstract and Section 2: the text-to-flowsheet translation is performed by a human, not by the framework. Moreover, no quantitative simulation results are reported for these two examples: no convergence status, mass/energy balance residuals, stream tables, or control-performance metrics. The claim that the framework generates 'simulator-validated process descriptions' is therefore unsupported by the experimental record; the manual assembly acts as an unmeasured oracle.
[Section 2 (ChemEval) and Section 3.2 (Figure 5 note)] The evaluation is circular. The SynDIP training data are generated by GPT-4o and Claude Haiku (Section 2, 'teacher LLMs'), and the ChemEval reference targets are also generated by GPT-4o and Claude Haiku, with the final ground truth produced by OpenAI o3/o3-mini (Section 3.2 note). Student outputs are then scored with BLEU/ROUGE/BERTScore against these teacher-generated references and with the Nemotron-4-340B reward model. High scores therefore measure how closely the students imitate the teacher LLMs, not whether the generated PFD/PID descriptions are physically correct or industrially viable. An independent evaluation by human process engineers, or a simulator-based metric applied to automatically assembled flowsheets, is needed to support the correctness and generalization claims.
[Section 3.1 and Section 3.2] The 'unseen chemicals' generalization claim is weakened because the ground truth for ChemEval is generated by general-purpose LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude Haiku, o3/o3-mini) that very likely have pretraining knowledge of the 100 held-out chemicals, even if those chemicals are absent from ChemAtlas. The benchmark therefore does not isolate the framework's zero-shot capability; it conflates generalization to novel chemistry with retrieval and imitation of teacher-model knowledge. The authors should either demonstrate that the teacher models have no knowledge of the ChemEval chemicals or evaluate on a set of genuinely novel, expert-validated processes.
[Section 3.1, GRPO reward] The composite reward for GRPO in Section 3.1 (ROUGE-L F1, length penalty, and an LLM-as-a-judge score) is also used as an evaluation criterion in the results. Since the same reward components appear in training and in the reported 'quality' metrics, the reported gains of GRPO over SFT partially reflect optimization toward the evaluation metric itself rather than independent quality improvement. This internal consistency should be separated from external validation, for example by reporting human expert scores or simulator-based feasibility on held-out cases.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.1] The model names are used inconsistently: the text alternates between 'Llama-3-1B' (Section 3.1), 'Llama-3.2-1B' (most places), 'Llama-3 1B' (Section 5.4.1), and 'Llama-3.2 1B' (figure captions). Please standardize to the exact architecture name.
[Figure 5] The captions and text mention 'larger error bars' and variance, but the figure descriptions do not show visible error bars or statistical significance tests. Please add error bars or confidence intervals, or state explicitly that they are omitted.
[Section 3.2, Figure 5(a)] The comparison against GPT-4o is underspecified: it is unclear whether GPT-4o is run with the framework's GraphRAG retrieval, test-time scaling, and feedback components, or as a zero-shot baseline. This makes the 'upper bound' interpretation ambiguous.
[Introduction, Section 2] The text describes the framework as an 'enterprise-grade, cloud-based SaaS solution' and a 'self-driving lab,' but no system architecture, deployment details, or user-facing components are provided. This is marketing language that should either be supported with technical details or removed.
[Section 2] The guardrails mentioned in Figure 3 and the Critique-Agent feedback loop are not formally defined or ablated independently. Please specify what the guardrails verify and how feedback decisions are made, and provide an ablation that isolates the feedback mechanism from test-time scaling.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Correctness and generalization results reduce to teacher imitation: ChemEval ground truth is generated by the same LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude Haiku, o3/o3-mini) that produced the training target distribution.

fitted input called prediction [Section 2, Methodology (ChemEval evaluation paragraph); Section 3.2 Figure 5 note]
"Finally, we evaluate the framework’s ability to generate accurate PFD and PID descriptions for unseen chemicals using ChemEval. Specifically, for each chemical in ChemEval, GPT-4o and Claude Haiku produced process flow and instrumentation descriptions in the form of QA pairs using the same self-instruct bootstrapping method. These QA pairs served as reference targets (ground truth) for quantitative evaluation."

The student SLMs are trained on SynDIP QA pairs generated by GPT-4o and Claude Haiku using the same self-instruct method, and the ChemEval 'ground truth' is produced by those same two LLMs. The reported correctness scores therefore measure how closely student text matches the teacher distribution the students were optimized to imitate. The Figure 5 note that ground truth is generated with o3/o3-mini does not break the loop: the target is still LLM-generated text with no independent engineering validation. The claimed 'outperforms baseline methods in correctness' thus reduces to a teacher-imitation score.
fitted input called prediction [Section 2, Methodology (OOD benchmark paragraph)]
"In addition, we construct a 1.5K QA-pair out-of-distribution (OOD) benchmark dataset fromChemAtlas using a self-instruct approach with teacher LLMs (OpenAI o3 and o1-mini) to generate synthetic QA pairs. These pairs are iteratively created from SynDIP-retrieved information and filtered for quality using a reward model."

The benchmark labeled out-of-distribution is generated with teacher LLMs from SynDIP-retrieved information, the same source content used to build the SynDIP training dataset. The 'OOD' evaluation is therefore not an independent distribution over new process-engineering facts; it is a rephrased sample of the training source. Performance on it measures paraphrase consistency with the teacher/source, not external generalization, making the 'generalizes effectively to unseen chemicals' claim a fit to the training information by construction.

full rationale

The central correctness/generalization evaluation is circular: training labels (SynDIP) and test references (ChemEval and the 1.5K 'OOD' benchmark) are both generated by the same LLM family with the same self-instruct bootstrapping, so the metrics measure teacher imitation rather than agreement with an external engineering standard. The abstract's 'simulator-validated process descriptions' claim is additionally not backed by an automated loop: Figures 6 and 7 were 'manually assembled' in DWSIM, which is an evidence gap (human oracle) rather than a circular reduction. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; the citation to the authors' prior work (Srinivas et al., 2024) is not used to justify the central derivation. Because the paper's headline correctness and generalization results reduce by construction to a fit to the teacher-generated text distribution, while the efficiency and pruning measurements retain independent content, the circularity score is 8 rather than 10.

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

The framework's central claim rests on teacher LLMs being valid ground truth (circular), on unreported filtering thresholds, and on a manual DWSIM step that the automated pipeline does not perform. These assumptions collectively carry the load of the industrial-viability claim.

free parameters (4)

GRPO composite reward weights = 0.3 (ROUGE-L), 0.2 (length), 0.5 (LLM-as-judge)
Chosen by hand in Section 5.7.1; the final policy depends on this weighting, and the authors present no sensitivity analysis.
Test-time scaling entropy-weight lambda = 0.5
Set in Section 5.5.2; controls the balance between confidence and fluency in candidate selection, and no sensitivity analysis is shown.
Reward model filtering thresholds = tau, tauDPO, tauSYN, tauLogic (values not reported)
Used to filter synthetic datasets in Section 5.2; these thresholds determine which training data survive, and exact values are not given.
Entity resolution similarity thresholds = tau_sim, tau_str (values not reported)
Used in graph construction in Section 5.3 to merge duplicate entities; no sensitivity analysis or reported values.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption GPT-4o and Claude Haiku generated descriptions of chemical production processes are accurate enough to serve as ground truth for training and evaluation.
ChemEval ground truth is generated by these LLMs (Section 3.2) and the same models generate training data; no human chemical engineer verification is reported.
ad hoc to paper DWSIM simulations of manually assembled flowsheets verify the automated framework's outputs.
Figures 6-9 show manual assembly; the leap from text generation to validated design is not automated, so this assumption effectively transfers validation credit to a human modeler.
domain assumption The agentic web navigation extracts reliable PFD/PID descriptions from public web sources.
Section 2 uses an AI agent to scrape and synthesize web data; the reliability and completeness of these sources are not independently assessed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AutoChemSchematic AI: Agentic Physics-Aware Automation for Chemical Manufacturing Scale-Up." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/57XXW3PY

@misc{pith2026250524584,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AutoChemSchematic AI: Agentic Physics-Aware Automation for Chemical Manufacturing Scale-Up},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/57XXW3PY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24584}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advances in generative AI have accelerated the discovery of novel chemicals and materials. However, scaling these discoveries to industrial production remains a major bottleneck due to the synthesis gap -- the need to develop entirely new manufacturing processes. This challenge requires detailed engineering blueprints: PFDs for equipment layouts and material/energy flows, and PIDs for process plant operations. Current AI systems cannot yet reliably generate these critical engineering schematics, creating a fundamental obstacle to manufacturing scale-up of novel discoveries. We present a closed-loop, physics-aware framework for automated generation of industrially viable PFDs and PIDs. The framework integrates three key components: (1) domain-specialized small language models (SLMs) trained for auto-generation of PFDs and PIDs, (2) a hierarchical knowledge graph containing process flow and instrumentation descriptions for 1,020+ chemicals for Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation (GRAG), and (3) an open-source chemical process simulator for modeling, simulation, optimization, and analysis of novel chemical processes. The SLMs are trained through a multi-stage pipeline on synthetic datasets, with process simulator-in-the-loop validation ensuring feasibility. To enhance computational efficiency, the framework implements structural pruning (width and depth) guided by importance heuristics to reduce language model size while preserving accuracy, followed by advanced inference optimizations including FlashAttention, Lookahead Decoding, PagedAttention with KV-cache quantization, and Test-Time Inference Scaling. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework generates simulator-validated process descriptions with high fidelity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24584 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The figure shows the detailed PID of a chemical process showing instrumentation and control systems, including: level control (LC) on reactor CSTR-1 regulating feed A; temperature control (TC) on column feed E adjusting HX-1 utility flow; pressure control (PC) at DCOL-1 overhead controlling product F; and flow control (FC) on bottoms product G. The diagram specifies control strategies and safety-critical parameters… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overview of the integrated framework. (a) The SLM fine-tuning pipeline depicts initial DPO alignment followed by supervised instruction tuning or policy-gradient reinforcement learning, with optional width/depth pruning. (b) The operational RAG framework illustrates a Meta-Agent coordinating with the specialized SLM (from part a), which accesses memory and graph databases for context. The SLM’s inference is accelera… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (51 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The figure illustrates the multi-stage instruction-tuning pipeline used to train specialized student models—such as Llama-3.2- 1B and SmolLM2-135M—for PFD/PID interpretation tasks. The pipeline integrates synthetic datasets including Factual QA, SynDIP, LogiCore, DPO, …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comprehensive evaluation of model performance on the ChemEval benchmark for automatic PFD/PID generation. (a) Compares GPT-4o, fine-tuned Llama-3.2 1B, and fine-tuned SmolLM2-135M using reward model evaluation (ranked by performance). (b) Analyzes the impact of fine-t…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The figure shows the nitric acid (HNO3) PFD showing key unit operations (NH3 oxidation, NO/NO2 conversion, absorption, distillation) with operating conditions. Generated in DWSIM from framework text. via query decomposition, expert routing, and iterative refinement. 5…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The figure illustrates the PFD of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) production, dynamically simulated in DWSIM. It details critical stages—including sulfur (S) combustion, catalytic SO2 oxidation, SO3 absorption, and oleum (H2S2O7) dilution—along with associated operating paramet…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The figure shows the PID for nitric acid production via the Ostwald process, generated using Visual Paradigm Online. The diagram highlights key process units—including the ammonia storage tank, plug flow reactor (PFR), absorption tower, and distillation column—along wi…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The figure presents the PID for sulfuric acid production via the Contact Process, created using Visual Paradigm Online from framework-generated descriptions. It highlights core equipment including the multi-tube furnace, fixed-bed reactors, absorption tower, and distil…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The figure illustrates an autonomous framework for generating textual descriptions of PFDs and PIDs for user-specified chemical processes to construct property graphs. A meta-agent decomposes complex queries into subtasks, routes them to domainspecific expert agents …

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The figure shows the pipeline for generating synthetic Factual QA dataset. GPT-4o or claude-3-Haiku decomposes domain topics into subtopics and creates question-answer pairs, which are filtered by the Nvidia Nemotron-4-340B reward model based on metrics like correctne…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: The figure illustrates the workflow for synthetic DPO dataset generation. GPT-4o or claude-3-Haiku generates questions with paired preferred and dispreferred responses. The Nvidia Nemotron-4-340B reward model scores responses, and pairs are filtered to ensure the pref…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: The figure outlines the SynDIP dataset generation process. Teacher models (GPT-4o, Claude-3-Haiku) generate PFD and PID descriptions. The Nvidia Nemotron-4-340B reward model validates, ensuring consistent quality across all outputs. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: The figure outlines the generation pipeline for the LogiCore dataset. Starting with the SynDIP dataset, GPT-4o and Claude-3-Haiku generate reasoning-augmented, Chain of thought (CoT) question-answer pairs. The Nvidia Nemotron4-340B reward model scores outputs based o…

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: The figure depicts the workflow for the Local RAIT dataset generation. Text chunks are extracted from the seed SynDIP dataset, and GPT-4o generates retrieval-grounded question-answer pairs. Outputs are evaluated using the Nemotron4-340B reward model and additional LL…

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: The figure illustrates the Global RAIT dataset generation workflow. PDFs are parsed, chunked, and grouped via semantic clustering to preserve context. A retriever selects top-k relevant chunks using vector similarity of embeddings obtained from a sentence embedding mo…

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Computational time for generating self-instruct synthetic datasets, including QA pair creation, verification (using either the Nvidia Nemotron-4-340B reward model or an LLM-as-ajudge approach), and quality filtering. SynDiP’s multi-stage generation (process contex…

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Carbon emissions (kg CO2) for synthetic dataset generation. SynDIP incurs the highest emissions, while Factual QA, DPO, and Local RAIT exhibit the lowest. 3.2-1B, Qwen 2.5-1.5B, and SmolLM2-135M. These models are specifically optimized for domain-specific tasks inv…

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: Evaluation of rejected responses from the DPO dataset using the NVIDIA-Nemotron-4-340B reward model. Lowscoring responses across evaluation metrics demonstrate undesirable output characteristics for preference optimization. helpfulness correctness coherence complexi…

**Figure 22.** Figure 22: Quality evaluation of the synthetic SynDIP dataset using the NVIDIA-Nemotron-4-340B reward model. Each chemical process description (PFD → PID) is scored across five key dimensions: helpfulness, correctness, coherence, complexity, and verbosity, validating alignment…

**Figure 23.** Figure 23: Quality evaluation of the reasoning-augmented LogiCore dataset using the NVIDIA-Nemotron-4-340B reward model. Each multi-step response is scored across five dimensions (helpfulness, correctness, coherence, complexity, and verbosity) to ensure logical validity and fa…

**Figure 24.** Figure 24: Quality evaluation of the Local RAIT synthetic dataset using the NVIDIA-Nemotron-4-340B reward model. Performance across five metrics (helpfulness, correctness, coherence, complexity, and verbosity) demonstrates the quality of retrievalaugmented QA pairs grounded in…

**Figure 25.** Figure 25: Quality evaluation of the synthetic Global RAIT dataset using the NVIDIA-Nemotron-4-340B reward model. The scores reflect the effectiveness of answers generated from clustered document chunks, demonstrating robust intra-document and inter-document reasoning capabilit…

**Figure 26.** Figure 26: The figure illustrates the end-to-end Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation (Graph RAG) pipeline for PFD/PID interpretation in chemical process engineering. A multimodal agentic framework—comprising expert agents coordinated by a metaagent—retrieves and processes dat…

**Figure 27.** Figure 27: Visualization of the Neo4j knowledge graph constructed for the Graph RAG framework, showing a subset of a larger graph containing 10,605 nodes and 29,901 edges. The graph includes two types of nodes: chunk nodes (text segments enriched with contextual relationships) …

**Figure 28.** Figure 28: Quantitative evaluation of Llama-3.2-1B and SmolLM-135M across three fine-tuning stages: (1) Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on Factual QA, SynDIP, and LogiCore; (2) Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) using the DPO dataset; and (3) RetrievalAugmented Instruction Tunin…

**Figure 29.** Figure 29: Performance evaluation of six model configurations on a 1.5K QA-pair out-of-distribution benchmark, independent of all synthetic training datasets (Factual QA, SynDIP, LogiCore, DPO, and RAIT). The Nvidia Nemotron-4-340B reward model assessed five key dimensions: (1) …

**Figure 30.** Figure 30: Training loss curves across different fine-tuning approaches and model sizes. Top row shows Llama 3.2 1B results for (a) supervised fine-tuning, (b) direct preference optimization, and (c) RAIT training. Bottom row presents corresponding results for SmolLM2-135M, demo…

**Figure 31.** Figure 31: Comparison of computational efficiency and environmental impact for fine-tuning Llama-3.2-1B (top) and SmolLM2-135M (bottom) across three approaches: (1) supervised QA tuning, (2) DPO, and (3) RAIT. Left panels (a,c) show wall-clock training time as a measure of compu…

**Figure 32.** Figure 32: Performance comparison between the fine-tuned Llama-3.2-1B model and GPT-4o on a held-out 1.5K QA-pair generalization benchmark, evaluated using the Nvidia/Nemotron4-340B reward model. GPT-4o establishes a strong baseline, outperforming Llama-3.2-1B in most metrics …

**Figure 34.** Figure 34: Additional metric evaluation (SacreBLEU, Similarity Score) for the six framework variants on the 1.5K QA-pair generalization benchmark. Results confirm the pattern observed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_34.png]

**Figure 35.** Figure 35: Comprehensive evaluation of six framework variants (A–F) using standard NLP metrics on the 1.5K QA-pair generalization benchmark. Results demonstrate that Variant A consistently achieves the highest scores, with fine-tuning and GraphRAG offering complementary improvem…

**Figure 36.** Figure 36: Evaluation-time computational cost and carbon impact across six framework variants (A–F) on the 1.5K QA-pair generalization benchmark. (a) Model runtime in minutes. (b) Estimated model CO2 emissions in kg. SmolLM2-135M variants (E, F) are markedly more efficient tha…

**Figure 37.** Figure 37: Evaluation of width (a) and depth (b) pruning effects on fine-tuned model quality. Performance measured using reward model scores across five dimensions on the 1.5K QA-pair generalization benchmark, demonstrating trade-offs between model compression and response quali…

**Figure 38.** Figure 38: Evaluation of width (a) and depth (b) pruning effects on specialized task performance for zero-shot PFD/PID generation. Performance measured using reward model scores on the ChemEval benchmark, illustrating compression impact on domain-specific capabilities. 5.5.2. TE…

**Figure 39.** Figure 39: Computational efficiency gains from width (a) and depth (b) pruning during evaluation. Plots demonstrate runtime reduction (minutes) as pruning percentage increases, showing the potential for faster inference with compressed models. duced using stochastic decoding (e.…

**Figure 40.** Figure 40: Comparison of standard NLP metrics on the DPO dataset using a fine-tuned Llama-3.2-1B model. The plot contrasts baseline greedy decoding (blue) against test-time inference scaling (orange). The scaling mechanism consistently improves metrics such as METEOR, ROUGE var…

**Figure 41.** Figure 41: Comparison of standard NLP metrics on the RAG dataset using a fine-tuned Llama-3.2-1B model. Results from baseline greedy decoding (blue) are compared against those from test-time inference scaling (orange). The scaling mechanism notably improves ROUGE-1, ROUGE-L, an…

**Figure 44.** Figure 44: Effect of test-time inference scaling on Correctness Score across four Llama-3.2-1B variants, evaluated on the LogiCore-DPO, GraphRAG-RetrievalQA, and Factual QA datasets. Compared to baseline decoding (‘Original’), the scaling mechanism (‘TestTimeScaling’) yields co…

**Figure 45.** Figure 45: Effect of test-time inference scaling on Helpfulness Score across four Llama-3.2-1B variants, evaluated on the LogiCore-DPO, GraphRAG-RetrievalQA, and Factual QA datasets. The scaling mechanism consistently improves helpfulness over baseline decoding across all vari…

**Figure 46.** Figure 46: Effect of test-time inference scaling on Complexity Score across four Llama-3.2-1B variants, evaluated on the LogiCore-DPO, GraphRAG-RetrievalQA, and Factual QA datasets. The scaling mechanism introduces a slight but consistent increase in generation complexity. A B…

**Figure 47.** Figure 47: Effect of test-time inference scaling on Verbosity Score across four Llama-3.2-1B variants, evaluated on the LogiCore-DPO, GraphRAG-RetrievalQA, and Factual QA datasets. The scaling mechanism leads to a marginal yet consistent increase in verbosity compared to baseli…

**Figure 48.** Figure 48: Training loss progression for Llama 3.2 1B fine-tuned with GRPO on QA datasets (Factual QA, SynDIP, LogiCore), showing convergence within 10 epochs. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Epoch 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Training Loss [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p…

**Figure 49.** Figure 49: Training loss progression for Llama 3.2 1B fine-tuned with GRPO on retrieval-augmented datasets (Local RAIT, Global RAIT), achieving convergence in 13 epochs. 42 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_49.png]

**Figure 50.** Figure 50: Performance comparison of GRPO and SFT finetuning on Llama 3.2 1B and SmolLM2-135M models, evaluated on the 1.5K QA-pair generalization benchmark. Bars show mean scores across five quality metrics: helpfulness, correctness, coherence, complexity, and verbosity. help…

**Figure 51.** Figure 51: Generalization performance of GRPO vs. SFT finetuning on Llama 3.2 1B and SmolLM2-135M models, evaluated on the out-of-distribution ChemEval dataset. GRPO shows clear advantages across helpfulness, correctness, coherence, and complexity, with similar verbosity acros…

**Figure 54.** Figure 54: t-SNE visualization of Claude-3-Haiku-generated process flow and instrumentation description embeddings from the ChemAtlas corpus. Distinct clusters reveal semantic relationships in the embedding space, showing moderate separation. This indicates improved inter-chem…

**Figure 55.** Figure 55: PCA visualization of Claude-3-Haiku-generated process description embeddings from the ChemAtlas corpus (first two principal components). Moderate clustering quality indicates better structural consistency and improved grouping of chemically similar production proces…

**Figure 58.** Figure 58: Cosine similarity distribution between GPT-4o and Claude-3-Haiku process description embeddings. The 0.7–0.8 peak reflects strong semantic agreement and structural coherence in PFD/PID representations. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Similarity Scores 0 50 100 150 200 250 300…

**Figure 59.** Figure 59: Cosine similarity distribution between GPT-4ogenerated and web-retrieved process embeddings. The broader 0.6–0.7 peak indicates moderate alignment with greater variability than Haiku-generated content. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Similarity Scores 0 25 50 75 100 125 150…

**Figure 60.** Figure 60: Cosine similarity distribution between Claude-3- Haiku and web-retrieved process embeddings. The diffuse 0.6–0.7 distribution suggests weaker alignment than GPT-4ogenerated representations. ventionally, the KV cache is stored contiguously, requiring 45 [PITH_FULL_IM…

**Figure 61.** Figure 61: Inference performance comparison between standard KV cache and PagedAttention combined with KV cache quantization on LLaMA-3.2 1B. Four key metrics are displayed: maximum achievable batch size, inference throughput (tokens/sec), peak GPU memory (GB) at maximum batch s…

**Figure 62.** Figure 62: Comparative inference performance of the fine-tuned Llama-3.2 1B model under standard greedy decoding and Lookahead Decoding (N=5, L=10). Results demonstrate a 1.9× latency reduction (40.5s → 21.3s for 2048 tokens) and 90% higher throughput (50.6 → 96.1 tokens/sec). S…

**Figure 63.** Figure 63: Performance comparison of Llama-3.2 1B using standard PyTorch attention versus FlashAttention on NVIDIA V100 GPU, showing training throughput (examples/sec), inference throughput (tokens/sec), and peak training memory usage (GB). attention scores are computed as: S = …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

FlashAttention on a Napkin: A Diagrammatic Approach to Deep Learning IO-Awareness

Abbott, V. and Zardini, G. Flashattention on a napkin: A diagrammatic approach to deep learning io-awareness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03317, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[2]

A., Goldstein, D

Alimin, A. A., Goldstein, D. P., Balhorn, L. S., and Schweidtmann, A. M. Talking like piping and instrumentation diagrams (p&ids). arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18928, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[3]

Inference-time scaling for complex tasks: Where we stand and what lies ahead

Balachandran, V., Chen, J., Chen, L., Garg, S., Joshi, N., Lara, Y., Langford, J., Nushi, B., Vineet, V., Wu, Y., et al. Inference-time scaling for complex tasks: Where we stand and what lies ahead. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00294, 2025

arXiv 2025
[4]

Forest-of-thought: Scaling test-time compute for enhancing llm reasoning

Bi, Z., Han, K., Liu, C., Tang, Y., and Wang, Y. Forest-of-thought: Scaling test-time compute for enhancing llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09078, 2024

arXiv 2024
[5]

Chen, J., Ren, J., Chen, X., Yang, C., Sun, R., and Ar k, S. \"O . Sets: Leveraging self-verification and self-correction for improved test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19306, 2025

arXiv 2025
[6]

Int-flashattention: Enabling flash attention for int8 quantization

Chen, S., Liu, Z., Wu, Z., Zheng, C., Cong, P., Jiang, Z., Wu, Y., Su, L., and Yang, T. Int-flashattention: Enabling flash attention for int8 quantization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16997, 2024

arXiv 2024
[7]

LLAMP: Large language model made powerful for high-fidelity materials knowledge retrieval and distillation

Chiang, Y., Hsieh, E., Chou, C.-H., and Riebesell, J. LLAMP: Large language model made powerful for high-fidelity materials knowledge retrieval and distillation . arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17244, 2024

arXiv 2024
[8]

Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning

Dao, T. Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08691, 2023

arXiv 2023

Show all 66 references

[9]

Flashattention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness

Dao, T., Fu, D., Ermon, S., Rudra, A., and R \'e , C. Flashattention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 0 16344--16359, 2022

2022
[10]

Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms

Dettmers, T., Pagnoni, A., Holtzman, A., and Zettlemoyer, L. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36: 0 10088--10115, 2023

2023
[11]

O., and Larson, J

Edge, D., Trinh, H., Cheng, N., Bradley, J., Chao, A., Mody, A., Truitt, S., Metropolitansky, D., Ness, R. O., and Larson, J. From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130, 2024

2024 arXiv
[12]

Break the sequential dependency of llm inference using lookahead decoding

Fu, Y., Bailis, P., Stoica, I., and Zhang, H. Break the sequential dependency of llm inference using lookahead decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02057, 2024

2024 arXiv
[13]

Bypass back-propagation: Optimization-based structural pruning for large language models via policy gradient

Gao, Y., Liu, Z., Zhang, W., Du, B., and Xia, G.-S. Bypass back-propagation: Optimization-based structural pruning for large language models via policy gradient. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10576, 2024

2024 arXiv
[14]

An agentic approach to automatic creation of p&id diagrams from natural language descriptions

Gowiakar, S., Iyengar, S., Segal, S., and Kalyanaraman, S. An agentic approach to automatic creation of p&id diagrams from natural language descriptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12898, 2024

2024 arXiv
[15]

Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing 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., et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

2025 arXiv
[16]

and Schwaller, P

Guo, J. and Schwaller, P. Saturn: Sample-efficient generative molecular design using memory manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17066, 2024

2024 arXiv
[17]

A., Mukherjee, S., Tang, X., et al

Han, H., Wang, Y., Shomer, H., Guo, K., Ding, J., Lei, Y., Halappanavar, M., Rossi, R. A., Mukherjee, S., Tang, X., et al. Retrieval-augmented generation with graphs (graphrag). arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00309, 2024

2024 arXiv
[18]

G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and question answering

He, X., Tian, Y., Sun, Y., Chawla, N., Laurent, T., LeCun, Y., Bresson, X., and Hooi, B. G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and question answering. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 0 132876--132907, 2024

2024
[19]

S., and Schweidtmann, A

Hirretier, E., Balhorn, L. S., and Schweidtmann, A. M. Towards automatic generation of piping and instrumentation diagrams (p&ids) with artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05583, 2022

2022 arXiv
[20]

Retrointext: A multimodal large language model enhanced framework for retrosynthetic planning via in-context representation learning

Kang, C., Liu, X., and Guo, F. Retrointext: A multimodal large language model enhanced framework for retrosynthetic planning via in-context representation learning. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations
[21]

R., and Srivastava, S

Kendapadi, A., Zaman, K., Menon, R. R., and Srivastava, S. Interact: Enabling interactive, question-driven learning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.11388, 2024

2024 arXiv
[22]

Shortened llama: Depth pruning for large language models with comparison of retraining methods

Kim, B.-K., Kim, G., Kim, T.-H., Castells, T., Choi, S., Shin, J., and Song, H.-K. Shortened llama: Depth pruning for large language models with comparison of retraining methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02834, 2024

2024 arXiv
[23]

A sober look at llms for material discovery: Are they actually good for bayesian optimization over molecules? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05015, 2024

Kristiadi, A., Strieth-Kalthoff, F., Skreta, M., Poupart, P., Aspuru-Guzik, A., and Pleiss, G. A sober look at llms for material discovery: Are they actually good for bayesian optimization over molecules? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05015, 2024

2024 arXiv
[24]

H., Gonzalez, J., Zhang, H., and Stoica, I

Kwon, W., Li, Z., Zhuang, S., Sheng, Y., Zheng, L., Yu, C. H., Gonzalez, J., Zhang, H., and Stoica, I. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp.\ 611--626, 2023

2023
[25]

A survey on llm test-time compute via search: Tasks, llm profiling, search algorithms, and relevant frameworks

Li, X. A survey on llm test-time compute via search: Tasks, llm profiling, search algorithms, and relevant frameworks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10069, 2025

2025 arXiv
[26]

Cppo: Accelerating the training of group relative policy optimization-based reasoning models

Lin, Z., Lin, M., Xie, Y., and Ji, R. Cppo: Accelerating the training of group relative policy optimization-based reasoning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22342, 2025

2025
[27]

Deepseek-v3 technical report

Liu, A., Feng, B., Xue, B., Wang, B., Wu, B., Lu, C., Zhao, C., Deng, C., Zhang, C., Ruan, C., et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

2024 arXiv
[28]

Y., Wang, F., Zhang, S., Poon, H., and Chen, M

Liu, Q., Zhou, W., Xu, N., Huang, J. Y., Wang, F., Zhang, S., Poon, H., and Chen, M. Metascale: Test-time scaling with evolving meta-thoughts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13447, 2025 a

2025 arXiv
[29]

Efficient inference for large reasoning models: A survey

Liu, Y., Wu, J., He, Y., Gao, H., Chen, H., Bi, B., Zhang, J., Huang, Z., and Hooi, B. Efficient inference for large reasoning models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23077, 2025 b

2025 arXiv
[30]

W., and Yang, Y

Lu, H., Zhou, Y., Liu, S., Wang, Z., Mahoney, M. W., and Yang, Y. Alphapruning: Using heavy-tailed self regularization theory for improved layer-wise pruning of large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 0 9117--9152, 2024

2024
[31]

Dynamic speculation lookahead accelerates speculative decoding of large language models

Mamou, J., Pereg, O., Korat, D., Berchansky, M., Timor, N., Wasserblat, M., and Schwartz, R. Dynamic speculation lookahead accelerates speculative decoding of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04304, 2024

2024 arXiv
[32]

Dwsim: Open source process simulator, 2025

Medeiros, D. Dwsim: Open source process simulator, 2025. URL https://dwsim.fossee.in. Accessed April 15, 2025

2025
[33]

text-embedding-3-small model

OpenAI. text-embedding-3-small model. https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/embeddings, 2024. Accessed: August 2024

2024
[34]

A chemically-guided generative diffusion model for materials synthesis planning

Pan, E., Kwon, S., Liu, S., Xie, M., Duan, Y., Prein, T., Sheriff, K., Roman, Y., Moliner, M., G \'o mez-Bombarelli, R., et al. A chemically-guided generative diffusion model for materials synthesis planning. In AI for Accelerated Materials Design--NeurIPS 2024, 2024

2024
[35]

vattention: Dynamic memory management for serving llms without pagedattention

Prabhu, R., Nayak, A., Mohan, J., Ramjee, R., and Panwar, A. vattention: Dynamic memory management for serving llms without pagedattention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04437, 2024

2024 arXiv
[36]

Y., Setlur, A., Tunstall, L., Beeching, E

Qu, Y., Yang, M. Y., Setlur, A., Tunstall, L., Beeching, E. E., Salakhutdinov, R., and Kumar, A. Optimizing test-time compute via meta reinforcement fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07572, 2025

2025 arXiv
[37]

S., Sadhanala, V., Rostamizadeh, A., Chakrabarti, A., Jitkrittum, W., Feinberg, V., Kim, S., Harutyunyan, H., Saunshi, N., Nado, Z., et al

Rawat, A. S., Sadhanala, V., Rostamizadeh, A., Chakrabarti, A., Jitkrittum, W., Feinberg, V., Kim, S., Harutyunyan, H., Saunshi, N., Nado, Z., et al. A little help goes a long way: Efficient llm training by leveraging small lms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18779, 2024

arXiv
[38]

Kv-compress: Paged kv-cache compression with variable compression rates per attention head

Rehg, I. Kv-compress: Paged kv-cache compression with variable compression rates per attention head. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00161, 2024

2024 arXiv
[39]

2ssp: A two-stage framework for structured pruning of llms

Sandri, F., Cunegatti, E., and Iacca, G. 2ssp: A two-stage framework for structured pruning of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17771, 2025

2025 arXiv
[40]

Proximal policy optimization algorithms

Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., and Klimov, O. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

2017 arXiv
[41]

Schulze Balhorn, L., Hirretier, E., Luderer, L., and Schweidtmann, A. M. Data augmentation for machine learning of chemical process flowsheets. arXiv e-prints, pp.\ arXiv--2302, 2023

2023
[42]

Flashattention-3: Fast and accurate attention with asynchrony and low-precision

Shah, J., Bikshandi, G., Zhang, Y., Thakkar, V., Ramani, P., and Dao, T. Flashattention-3: Fast and accurate attention with asynchrony and low-precision. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 0 68658--68685, 2024

2024
[43]

Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models

Shao, Z., Wang, P., Zhu, Q., Xu, R., Song, J., Bi, X., Zhang, H., Zhang, M., Li, Y., Wu, Y., et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

2024 arXiv
[44]

When to solve, when to verify: Compute-optimal problem solving and generative verification for llm reasoning

Singhi, N., Bansal, H., Hosseini, A., Grover, A., Chang, K.-W., Rohrbach, M., and Rohrbach, A. When to solve, when to verify: Compute-optimal problem solving and generative verification for llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.01005, 2025

2025
[45]

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

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

2024 arXiv
[46]

W., Edwards, C., Agarwal, K., Olarte, M

Sprueill, H. W., Edwards, C., Agarwal, K., Olarte, M. V., Sanyal, U., Johnston, C., Liu, H., Ji, H., and Choudhury, S. Chemreasoner: Heuristic search over a large language model's knowledge space using quantum-chemical feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10980, 2024

2024 arXiv
[47]

S., Das, A., Gupta, S., and Runkana, V

Srinivas, S. S., Das, A., Gupta, S., and Runkana, V. Accelerating manufacturing scale-up from material discovery using agentic web navigation and retrieval-augmented ai for process engineering schematics design. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05937, 2024

2024 arXiv
[48]

Sun, M., Liu, Z., Bair, A., and Kolter, J. Z. A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11695, 2023

2023 arXiv
[49]

The curse of depth in large language models

Sun, W., Song, X., Li, P., Yin, L., Zheng, Y., and Liu, S. The curse of depth in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05795, 2025

2025
[50]

Darwinlm: Evolutionary structured pruning of large language models

Tang, S., Sieberling, O., Kurtic, E., Shen, Z., and Alistarh, D. Darwinlm: Evolutionary structured pruning of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07780, 2025

2025 arXiv
[51]

Tian, Y., Han, Y., Chen, X., Wang, W., and Chawla, N. V. Beyond answers: Transferring reasoning capabilities to smaller llms using multi-teacher knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp.\ 251--260, 2025

2025
[52]

A., Waltman, L., and Van Eck, N

Traag, V. A., Waltman, L., and Van Eck, N. J. From louvain to leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities. Scientific reports, 9 0 (1): 0 1--12, 2019

2019
[53]

S., and Schweidtmann, A

Vogel, G., Balhorn, L. S., and Schweidtmann, A. M. Learning from flowsheets: A generative transformer model for autocompletion of flowsheets. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 171: 0 108162, 2023

2023
[54]

Efficient evolutionary search over chemical space with large language models

Wang, H., Skreta, M., Ser, C.-T., Gao, W., Kong, L., Strieth-Kalthoff, F., Duan, C., Zhuang, Y., Yu, Y., Zhu, Y., et al. Efficient evolutionary search over chemical space with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16976, 2024

2024 arXiv
[55]

Llm-bip: Structured pruning for large language models with block-wise forward importance propagation

Wu, H. Llm-bip: Structured pruning for large language models with block-wise forward importance propagation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06419, 2024

2024 arXiv
[56]

Qa-lora: Quantization-aware low-rank adaptation of large language models

Xu, Y., Xie, L., Gu, X., Chen, X., Chang, H., Zhang, H., Chen, Z., Zhang, X., and Tian, Q. Qa-lora: Quantization-aware low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14717, 2023

2023 arXiv
[57]

X., Song, X., Zhang, Y., Niu, Q., Peng, B., et al

Yang, J., Song, J., Han, X., Bi, Z., Wang, T., Liang, C. X., Song, X., Zhang, Y., Niu, Q., Peng, B., et al. Feature alignment and representation transfer in knowledge distillation for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13825, 2025 a

2025 arXiv
[58]

C., Jimenez Rezende, D., Schuurmans, D., Mordatch, I., and Cubuk, E

Yang, S., Batzner, S., Gao, R., Aykol, M., Gaunt, A., McMorrow, B. C., Jimenez Rezende, D., Schuurmans, D., Mordatch, I., and Cubuk, E. D. Generative hierarchical materials search. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 0 38799--38819, 2024

2024
[59]

Towards thinking-optimal scaling of test-time compute for llm reasoning

Yang, W., Ma, S., Lin, Y., and Wei, F. Towards thinking-optimal scaling of test-time compute for llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18080, 2025 b

2025
[60]

Z1: Efficient test-time scaling with code

Yu, Z., Wu, Y., Zhao, Y., Cohan, A., and Zhang, X.-P. Z1: Efficient test-time scaling with code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00810, 2025

2025 arXiv
[61]

Honeycomb: A flexible llm-based agent system for materials science

Zhang, H., Song, Y., Hou, Z., Miret, S., and Liu, B. Honeycomb: A flexible llm-based agent system for materials science. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00155, 2024

2024 arXiv
[62]

What, how, where, and how well? a survey on test-time scaling in large language models

Zhang, Q., Lyu, F., Sun, Z., Wang, L., Zhang, W., Guo, Z., Wang, Y., King, I., Liu, X., and Ma, C. What, how, where, and how well? a survey on test-time scaling in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.24235, 2025

2025 arXiv
[63]

Lookahead: An inference acceleration framework for large language model with lossless generation accuracy

Zhao, Y., Xie, Z., Liang, C., Zhuang, C., and Gu, J. Lookahead: An inference acceleration framework for large language model with lossless generation accuracy. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp.\ 6344--6355, 2024

2024
[64]

Seeking neural nuggets: Knowledge transfer in large language models from a parametric perspective

Zhong, M., An, C., Chen, W., Han, J., and He, P. Seeking neural nuggets: Knowledge transfer in large language models from a parametric perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11451, 2023

2023 arXiv
[65]

A survey on model compression for large language models

Zhu, X., Li, J., Liu, Y., Ma, C., and Wang, W. A survey on model compression for large language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12: 0 1556--1577, 2024

2024
[66]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

FlashAttention on a Napkin: A Diagrammatic Approach to Deep Learning IO-Awareness

Abbott, V. and Zardini, G. Flashattention on a napkin: A diagrammatic approach to deep learning io-awareness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03317, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

A., Goldstein, D

Alimin, A. A., Goldstein, D. P., Balhorn, L. S., and Schweidtmann, A. M. Talking like piping and instrumentation diagrams (p&ids). arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18928, 2025

work page arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

Inference-time scaling for complex tasks: Where we stand and what lies ahead

Balachandran, V., Chen, J., Chen, L., Garg, S., Joshi, N., Lara, Y., Langford, J., Nushi, B., Vineet, V., Wu, Y., et al. Inference-time scaling for complex tasks: Where we stand and what lies ahead. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00294, 2025

arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

Forest-of-thought: Scaling test-time compute for enhancing llm reasoning

Bi, Z., Han, K., Liu, C., Tang, Y., and Wang, Y. Forest-of-thought: Scaling test-time compute for enhancing llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09078, 2024

arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Chen, J., Ren, J., Chen, X., Yang, C., Sun, R., and Ar k, S. \"O . Sets: Leveraging self-verification and self-correction for improved test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19306, 2025

arXiv 2025

[6] [6]

Int-flashattention: Enabling flash attention for int8 quantization

Chen, S., Liu, Z., Wu, Z., Zheng, C., Cong, P., Jiang, Z., Wu, Y., Su, L., and Yang, T. Int-flashattention: Enabling flash attention for int8 quantization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16997, 2024

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

LLAMP: Large language model made powerful for high-fidelity materials knowledge retrieval and distillation

Chiang, Y., Hsieh, E., Chou, C.-H., and Riebesell, J. LLAMP: Large language model made powerful for high-fidelity materials knowledge retrieval and distillation . arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17244, 2024

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning

Dao, T. Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08691, 2023

arXiv 2023