Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Optimizing Sequential Multi-Step Tasks with Parallel LLM Agents

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Running several independent LLM agent teams on one task and stopping at the first finish can cut end-to-end latency by up to 2.2x while keeping aggregate completion rates roughly unchanged.

desk verdict A solid systems paper with a credible latency win; the accuracy-preservation claim needs tighter evidence before you bank on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08944 v1 pith:6AC6RCUI submitted 2025-07-11 cs.MA cs.AI

Enhao Zhang , Erkang Zhu , Gagan Bansal , Adam Fourney , Hussein Mozannar , Jack Gerrits This is my paper
classification cs.MAcs.AI
keywords multi-agentLLMsystemsparallelexecutionearlyterminationlatencyoptimizationtaskcompletionrateansweraggregationplandiversityrepeatedsampling
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

This paper argues that a complex multi-step task usually has several valid solution plans with very different runtimes, and that a system can exploit that spread by launching multiple independent multi-agent teams on the same task and accepting the first answer that returns. Compared with running one team to completion, this early-termination mode reports end-to-end latency reductions of 1.6x to 2.2x on a benchmark of realistic assistant tasks, while aggregate task completion rates stay roughly level. The paper also shows that waiting for several teams and having an LLM aggregate their answers improves completion rates, at the cost of higher latency and roughly 2.5x to 3.4x monetary cost. A separate finding is that explicitly prompting for diverse plans does not beat simply sampling plans repeatedly; the authors attribute this to forced-diversity plans containing unnecessary steps.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is concurrent execution of several independent multi-agent teams on one task, with the system's visible latency set by the fastest team in early-stop mode or by the k-th team to finish in aggregation mode. An event-driven, asynchronous messaging layer lets teams run without blocking one another, and a shared failure memory lets a failed team receive a revised plan and retry. The speedup comes from the spread in per-plan runtimes: the fastest of several teams is typically much faster than the average single team, and the paper's data show the fastest teams also use the fewest reasoning steps.

What would settle it

Compare, on a fixed task set, the completion rate of the fastest-finishing team against the second- and third-finishing teams, using enough repetitions to separate the rates; if the first finisher completes a measurably smaller share of tasks than the later finishers, the central claim that early termination preserves completion rate fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a centralized manager can sample multiple independent multi-agent teams, each given its own initial plan, and either stop on the first successful team or wait for several teams and aggregate their answers. The discovery is that plan latencies for the same task vary widely enough that the fastest of several teams finishes substantially earlier than a single team's typical runtime, and that this speedup does not come with a measurable loss in the number of tasks solved. On the benchmark's three difficulty levels, early termination with three teams reaches 1.6x to 1.8x speedup, and with five teams 1.8x to 2.2x, while aggregation solves roughly five to nine more tasks total across levels. The paper's own table of first-, second-, and third-finishing teams shows that faster teams also converge with fewer reasoning steps, which is the mechanism early termination relies on.

Load-bearing premise

Early-stop mode assumes the first team to finish is no more likely to be wrong than a later team, so stopping on it preserves accuracy; the paper reports only aggregate completion rates, not accuracy split by finishing order.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If early termination preserves completion rates as claimed, latency-sensitive deployments can run several agent teams per task and take the first answer, trading money for wall-clock time.
  • If aggregation improves completion as claimed, multi-agent systems can be used as a form of answer verification, but only when latency and token budget are secondary concerns.
  • The cost profile is the main practical constraint: parallel teams multiply inference cost by roughly 2.5x to 3.4x, so the method fits settings where speed or completion matters more than dollar cost.
  • Because diverse planning gave no gain over repeated sampling, the simplest deployment, using the same prompt with high temperature and independent samples, is the recommended default for this style of parallel agent system.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not run is conditioning completion rate on return rank; if the fastest-returning team is systematically less accurate, early termination trades correctness for speed even though aggregate rates look unchanged.
  • The order-statistic view implies that speedup should grow with the variance or heavy-tailedness of plan latencies, so sampling harder tasks or adding more teams should widen the gap between the minimum and mean runtime.
  • The aggregation result suggests execution logs carry signal an LLM verifier can exploit; a natural stress test is whether aggregation still helps when the aggregator is the same weak model as the teams, since the paper saw that setup fail.
  • One could isolate whether early termination's benefit is purely a minimum-of-n effect by comparing it to a sequential first-successful-retry baseline with the same compute, separating parallelism from the diversity of plans.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces M1-Parallel, an orchestration layer that runs n independent Magentic-One teams on the same task with different initial plans. In Early-stop mode, the first team that reports success terminates the whole system and its answer is returned; in Aggregation mode, k answers are collected and combined by an LLM aggregator. Experiments on the GAIA validation set (53+86+26 tasks, multiple runs per task) report 1.6x to 2.2x wall-clock speedups with early stopping at roughly unchanged solved-task counts, small solved-task gains from aggregation (3, 5, and 1 additional tasks across levels with three teams, and 3, 7, and 1 with five teams), and no benefit from diversity-promoting plan generation compared with repeated sampling. The paper also reports monetary cost increases and an approximate local-model evaluation using Qwen3-32B.

Significance. If the claims hold, M1-Parallel is a simple, model-agnostic and practical recipe for reducing the wall-clock latency of sequential multi-agent systems by exploiting latency diversity across parallel teams, which is a real pain point for deployed agentic systems. The latency-reduction mechanism is well grounded in order statistics, and the paper backs it with a large aggregate measurement on an external benchmark with multiple runs. The authors also deserve credit for reporting cost trade-offs, for including an oracle upper-bound analysis (best-of-k), and for explicitly disclosing the memory-constrained local-model estimation. The main weakness is that the 'without compromising completion rate' half of the headline claim is not yet statistically isolated: the relevant comparisons are based on small task-count differences with overlapping confidence intervals, and the paper never tests whether the first self-reported success is as reliable as slower-returning answers.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1 (Early-stop mode), Section 5.6, Table 1] The central claim that early stopping 'preserves accuracy' is not directly tested. In early-stop mode the returned answer is as = a(1), i.e., the first self-reported success, selected by latency. The paper reports mean latency and step counts by return rank (Table 1) and latency splits for solved vs failed tasks (Figure 10), but never reports correctness conditioned on return rank. If the fastest team to self-report success is systematically less likely to be correct than slower teams, the measured speedup is partly an accuracy trade-off. Please add (i) the solved rate or P(correct) for the 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-returned teams and for the Magentic-One baseline; (ii) a paired per-task/per-run comparison of M1-Early versus Magentic-One solved counts; and (iii) the distribution of early-stop answers by return rank. This analysis is feasible with the logged data and directly tests the load-bearing condition.
  2. [Section 5.1, Section 5.2] The claim that aggregation 'improves task completion' rests on small absolute differences: 3 more tasks at level 1, 5 at level 2, and 1 at level 3 with three teams, and 3/7/1 with five teams. With five runs per task, these counts are within the range of run-to-run variability, and the 95% confidence intervals for solved-task counts in Figures 5 and 6 overlap. No significance test, paired comparison, or effect-size measure is reported. Please report per-run paired differences (M1-Aggr minus Magentic-One) with confidence intervals and a statistical test appropriate for paired binary outcomes (e.g., McNemar or a paired bootstrap) to support the word 'improves'. If the evidence is insufficient, the claim should be softened to a directional observation.
  3. [Section 5.1, metrics] The metric '# Solved Tasks' is not defined precisely enough to interpret the completion-rate claims. The text says each task is run five times, but it is unclear whether the reported count is the mean over the five runs of the number of tasks solved in a run, or the number of tasks solved in at least one of the five runs (an 'any-run' count). The error bars suggest averaging, but the text reports integer differences such as 'three more tasks'. Please state the definition, report per-run counts or per-run means with standard deviations, and specify what the error bars in Figures 5-8 represent (across runs, across tasks, or both).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption contains the typo 'an lengthy'; it should be 'a lengthy'.
  2. [Section 4.1] The definitions of t_i and a(1) should explicitly restrict the early-stop equations to teams that return si = 1; the current text says 'an answer is returned', but failed teams return si = 0 with no answer, and the retry logic is not reflected in the early-stop cost and answer equations.
  3. [Figures 5-8 captions] The captions say 'Error bars show the 95% confidence interval' but do not specify whether the interval is over the five runs, over tasks, or over a bootstrap of both; please clarify in the captions or text.
  4. [Section 5.4] The local-model latency numbers should be presented as estimates or upper/lower bounds, since they are derived from sequential Magentic-One runs (min/max of three runs) rather than from measured concurrent execution; the text discloses this, but the figures and prose still read as system measurements.
  5. [Section 5.5] The repeated-versus-diverse planning comparison is limited to GAIA level-1 tasks; please add a sentence explaining whether this is due to cost or to the expectation that the effect is largest on level-1 tasks.
  6. [Section 5.1, evaluation setup] Please state explicitly how answers were scored (e.g., GAIA's exact-match with normalization) and confirm that the same scoring was applied to all methods, since the 'solved task' counts are the basis for the accuracy claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: claims are empirical measurements against the external GAIA benchmark; the Magentic-One self-citation is a baseline choice, not a load-bearing unverified premise.

full rationale

The paper makes no first-principles derivation that could reduce to its inputs. Its central claims—early-stop reduces latency and preserves completion rate, aggregation improves completion rate—are empirical measurements on the GAIA benchmark, whose ground-truth labels are external to the method. The latency reduction is realized through the definition ts = t(1) (Section 4.1), but the magnitude is measured rather than predicted from a fitted model, and completion-rate preservation is not forced by that definition because si is a self-reported flag, not a verified answer. The only notable self-citation is the use of Magentic-One (Fourney et al., 2024) as the baseline and as the team architecture; five of the six authors of this paper are co-authors of Magentic-One. However, this baseline is used as a concrete system to parallelize, not as an unverified premise: the comparison is against GAIA's externally defined correct answers, and the benefit of parallelism is not embedded in Magentic-One's sequential design. No parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction; the 'best-of-k' oracle is explicitly labeled an upper bound rather than a claimed method. The overlapping confidence intervals in Figure 5 weaken the 'without compromising completion rate' claim statistically, but that is a correctness or evidence concern, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contributions are empirical, not derivational, so the ledger is short. The main hidden costs are the unstated temperature, the untested rank-accuracy independence, and the assumption of contention-free parallelism; none are fitted to manufacture a result.

free parameters (3)
  • number of parallel teams n = 3 (default), 5 (variant)
    The central design choice: speedup and monetary cost scale with n. Chosen by hand; no tuning or theoretical optimum is given.
  • number of aggregated answers k = 3 (default), 5 (variant)
    Aggregation mode waits for k answers before producing a final answer; k is set equal to n by default. This choice trades latency against completion-rate gains.
  • plan-generation temperature = not reported
    Plan diversity in repeated and diverse planning depends on temperature; the paper says 'high temperature' but does not report the value, and this directly affects the diversity comparison.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption GAIA validation labels are correct and exact-match grading is a valid success measure
    Completion rate means answer matches GAIA ground truth; this is the external yardstick for all accuracy claims. Invoked in Section 5 (Datasets and Metrics).
  • domain assumption A team's self-reported success indicator si correlates with actual task correctness
    Early-stop terminates on the first self-reported success (Section 4.1); if teams can confidently report a wrong answer, early-stop accuracy could differ from the aggregate completion rate. Not tested by return rank.
  • domain assumption Concurrent teams do not contend for API or local compute in the main GPT-4o experiments
    Latency is measured as wall-clock time; the paper assumes parallel execution is truly parallel. For local models it explicitly notes memory forced sequential queuing and simulated ideal latency (Section 5.4).
  • domain assumption Plan latencies are sufficiently variable that the minimum of n teams is materially below the single-team mean
    The early-stop speedup is an order-statistics effect; Figure 11 provides empirical support on GAIA, but the effect is not guaranteed for other task distributions.
  • domain assumption Reported OpenAI prices are a faithful cost model
    Monetary cost is computed from GPT-4o token prices (Section 5, Metrics); actual costs vary with provider and deployment.
  • standard math The minimum of n independent positive random variables is typically smaller than a single draw, so early termination can only reduce latency given variance (order-statistics property)
    Used implicitly throughout Section 4.1 and Section 5.6; the paper measures the variance but does not derive the expected minimum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Sequential Multi-Step Tasks with Parallel LLM Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6AC6RCUI

@misc{pith2026250708944,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Sequential Multi-Step Tasks with Parallel LLM Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6AC6RCUI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08944}
}
abstract

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems have demonstrated remarkable promise for tackling complex tasks by breaking them down into subtasks that are iteratively planned, executed, observed, and refined. Despite their effectiveness, these systems often incur high latency because real-world problems frequently demand multiple iterative cycles of reasoning steps. To address this challenge, we propose M1-Parallel, a framework that concurrently runs multiple multi-agent teams in parallel to uncover distinct solution paths. By leveraging an event-driven communication model with asynchronous messaging, M1-Parallel efficiently capitalizes on the inherent diversity of valid plans to either reduce end-to-end latency or boost task completion rates. Our experiments on complex tasks show that M1-Parallel with early termination achieves up to $2.2\times$ speedup while preserving accuracy, and that M1-Parallel with aggregation yields higher task completion rates. We further investigate strategies aimed at encouraging diverse execution plans but observe no additional performance gains over repeated sampling. Overall, these findings underscore the potential of parallel plan execution for optimizing multi-agent systems for real-world, high-complexity reasoning tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08944 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: An example task with annotated solution steps from GAIA. Right: Multiple plans for solving the same task. M1-Parallel reduces end-to-end latency by executing multiple plans in parallel, noting that a complex task often has multiple valid solving plans with different latencies. In this example, M1-Parallel launches three plans in parallel and terminates when the execution of the fastest plan (i.e., Plan #3) fin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Parallel agents with (a) early stopping and (b) aggrega￾tion. set of n plans, P = {pi} n i=1: P = π(q) and instantiates a multi-agent team fi for each plan pi . A multi-agent team could be any predefined pattern that can solve the user task. In our prototype, a team consists of an orchestrator, a coder, a computer terminal, a web surfer, and a file surfer (Fourney et al., 2024). (2) Individual team completion: Each … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Aggregation prompt to integrate responses from multiple teams into a final answer. answer of M1-Parallel as ts, cs, as. Define the sorted team latency in ascending order as t(1) ≤ t(2) ≤ · · · ≤ t(n) In the Early-stop mode (Figure 2a), the first answer returned by a team is treated as the final answer and the system is immediately terminated afterwards. Therefore, as = a(1), ts = t(1), cs = Xn i=1 ci(t(1)) In the Ag… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diverse Plan Prompt. The aggregation prompt is listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Latency, number of solved tasks, and monetary cost of different methods on GAIA. Error bars show the 95% confidence interval. system struggles to solve the tasks and terminates due to reaching a maximum number of attempts. Furthermore, since M1-Parallel launches three …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Latency breakdown for both solved and failed tasks on GAIA. Error bars show the 95% confidence interval. voting in many cases and does not harm performance in other cases, suggesting that the logs of execution plans con￾tain useful information that the LLM can leverag…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Number of solved tasks, latency, number of prompt to￾kens, and number of completion tokens with Qwen3-32B on GAIA. Error bars show the 95% confidence interval. Magentic-One Aggr-Diverse Early-Diverse Aggr-Repeated Early-Repeated 0 100 200 300 Time (min) 0 10 20 30 # So…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Latency of different planning strategies on GAIA level-1 tasks. Error bars show the 95% confidence interval. 5.3. Aggregation strategies To evaluate how effective our LLM-based aggregation strat￾egy (LLM) is, we compare against three other methods (as described in Sect…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Latency distribution for M1-Parallel teams on GAIA tasks, categorized by level. Each colored dot represents the time it takes a team to attempt a task. The x-axis shows the tasks sorted by their latency range (difference between highest and lowest latencies) in ascend…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Beyond Individual Intelligence: Surveying Collaboration, Failure Attribution, and Self-Evolution in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A survey that unifies prior work on multi-agent LLM systems via the LIFE framework, mapping dependencies across collaboration, failure attribution, and autonomous self-evolution while identifying cross-stage challenges.

  2. When Should Users Check? Modeling Confirmation Frequency inMulti-Step Agentic AI Tasks

    cs.HC 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A decision-theoretic model based on the observed Confirmation-Diagnosis-Correction-Redo user pattern places intermediate confirmations in AI agent tasks, yielding 81% user preference and 13.54% faster completion versu...

  3. CONCAT: Consensus- and Confidence-Driven Ad Hoc Teaming for Efficient LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems

    cs.MA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    CONCAT introduces a consensus- and confidence-driven ad hoc teaming method that reduces communication overhead in LLM-based multi-agent systems by up to 50% latency while improving efficiency ratio without any training.

  4. Beyond Individual Intelligence: Surveying Collaboration, Failure Attribution, and Self-Evolution in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The survey proposes the LIFE framework to unify fragmented research on collaboration, failure attribution, and self-evolution in LLM multi-agent systems into a progression toward self-organizing intelligence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 14 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [6]

    Q., Sablayrolles, A., Roux, A., Mensch, A., Savary, B., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D

    Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Roux, A., Mensch, A., Savary, B., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., de Las Casas, D., Hanna, E. B., Bressand, F., Lengyel, G., Bour, G., Lample, G., Lavaud, L. R., Saulnier, L., Lachaux, M., Stock, P., Sub- ramanian, S., Yang, S., Antoniak, S., Scao, T. L., Gervet, T., Lavril, T., Wang, T., Lacroix, T., and Sayed, W. E. Mixtral ...

    arXiv

  2. [7]

    K., Naik, A., Sakkas, G., Choudhury, P., von Veh, C., Musuvathi, M., Inala, J

    Lahiri, S. K., Naik, A., Sakkas, G., Choudhury, P., von Veh, C., Musuvathi, M., Inala, J. P., Wang, C., and Gao, J. Interactive code generation via test-driven user- intent formalization. CoRR, abs/2208.05950,

    arXiv

  3. [9]

    H., Chung, J., Kushman, N., Schrit- twieser, J., Leblond, R., Eccles, T., Keeling, J., Gi- meno, F., Lago, A

    Li, Y ., Choi, D. H., Chung, J., Kushman, N., Schrit- twieser, J., Leblond, R., Eccles, T., Keeling, J., Gi- meno, F., Lago, A. D., Hubert, T., Choy, P., de Mas- son d’Autume, C., Babuschkin, I., Chen, X., Huang, P., Welbl, J., Gowal, S., Cherepanov, A., Molloy, J., Mankowitz, D. J., Robson, E. S., Kohli, P., de Freitas, N., Kavukcuoglu, K., and Vinyals, ...

    arXiv

  4. [10]

    URL https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.07814

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2203.07814. URL https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.07814. Mialon, G., Fourrier, C., Wolf, T., LeCun, Y ., and Scialom, T. GAIA: a benchmark for general AI assistants. In ICLR,

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.07814

  5. [11]

    Ning, X., Lin, Z., Zhou, Z., Wang, Z., Yang, H., and Wang, Y

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2310.07088. Ning, X., Lin, Z., Zhou, Z., Wang, Z., Yang, H., and Wang, Y . Skeleton-of-thought: Prompting llms for efficient parallel generation. In ICLR,

    arXiv

  6. [12]

    Planning in natural language improves llm search for code gen- eration, 2024a

    Wang, E., Cassano, F., Wu, C., Bai, Y ., Song, W., Nath, V ., Han, Z., Hendryx, S., Yue, S., and Zhang, H. Planning in natural language improves llm search for code gen- eration, 2024a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2409.03733. Wang, H. W., Gordon, M., Battle, L., and Heer, J. Dracogpt: Extracting visualization design preferences from large language models. ...

    arXiv

  7. [13]

    Mixture-of-agents enhances large language model capabilities

    Wang, J., Wang, J., Athiwaratkun, B., Zhang, C., and Zou, J. Mixture-of-agents enhances large language model capabilities. CoRR, abs/2406.04692, 2024b. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2406.04692. URL https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.04692. Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q. V ., Chi, E. H., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., and Zhou, D. Self- consistency improve...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.04692

  8. [14]

    Un- leashing the emergent cognitive synergy in large language models: A task-solving agent through multi-persona self- collaboration

    Wang, Z., Mao, S., Wu, W., Ge, T., Wei, F., and Ji, H. Un- leashing the emergent cognitive synergy in large language models: A task-solving agent through multi-persona self- collaboration. In NAACL, pp. 257–279, 2024c. Wu, Q., Bansal, G., Zhang, J., Wu, Y ., Zhang, S., Zhu, E., Li, B., Jiang, L., Zhang, X., and Wang, C. Autogen: Enabling next-gen LLM appl...

    arXiv

Show all 14 references
  1. [16]

    Zhang, E., Sullivan, N., Haynes, B., Krishna, R., and Bal- azinska, M

    URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2501.01005. Zhang, E., Sullivan, N., Haynes, B., Krishna, R., and Bal- azinska, M. Self-enhancing video data management sys- tem for compositional events with large language models [technical report]. CoRR, abs/2408.02243,

    arXiv

  2. [2021]

    Dao, T., Fu, D

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.14168. Dao, T., Fu, D. Y ., Ermon, S., Rudra, A., and R´e, C. Flashat- tention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness. In NeurIPS,

    arXiv

  3. [2022]

    URL https://doi

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2208.05950. URL https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.05950. Lambert, N., Pyatkin, V ., Morrison, J., Miranda, L., Lin, B. Y ., Chandu, K., Dziri, N., Kumar, S., Zick, T., Choi, Y ., Smith, N. A., and Hajishirzi, H. Rewardbench: Evalu- ating reward models f...

    doi arXiv

  4. [2023]

    Scene graph genera- tion with role-playing large language models

    Chen, G., Li, J., and Wang, W. Scene graph genera- tion with role-playing large language models. CoRR, abs/2410.15364, 2024a. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV . 2410.15364. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2410.15364. Chen, L., Davis, J., Hanin, B., Bailis, P., Stoica, I., Zaharia, M., ...

    doi arXiv

  5. [2024]

    Guo, T., Guo, K., Nan, B., Liang, Z., Guo, Z., Chawla, N

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2411.04468. Guo, T., Guo, K., Nan, B., Liang, Z., Guo, Z., Chawla, N. V ., Wiest, O., and Zhang, X. What can large language models do in chemistry? A comprehensive benchmark on eight tasks. In NeurIPS,

    arXiv

  6. [2025]

    Brown, B. C. A., Juravsky, J., Ehrlich, R. S., Clark, R., Le, Q. V ., R´e, C., and Mirhoseini, A. Large language mon- keys: Scaling inference compute with repeated sampling. CoRR, abs/2407.21787,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.