Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 44 references

Kernel-Based Sparse Additive Nonlinear Model Structure Detection through a Linearization Approach

T0 review · 2 major / 2 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 The additive structure of a sparse nonlinear system — the number of subterms and the inputs each one depends on — can be recovered from input-output data by linearizing around operating points and detecting nonzero Hessian entries.

desk verdict The abstract describes a plausible structure-detection idea, but the submitted full text is a different paper, so the claims are completely unsupported in this packet. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.01453 v1 pith:DLGCCFD5 submitted 2025-08-02 eess.SY cs.LGcs.SYstat.ML

Sadegh Ebrahimkhani , John Lataire This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.LGcs.SYstat.ML MSC 93B3093C10
keywords sparseadditivemodelsnonlinearsystemidentificationstructuredetectionlinearparameter-varyingsystemsreproducingkernelHilbertspaceHessiansparsitymodelreductiontrajectory-scheduledLPV
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 is trying to establish that the structure of a sparse additive nonlinear system can be recovered purely from input-output data by a two-step trick. First, under small-signal operation, the unknown nonlinearity is approximated as a linear parameter-varying (LPV) system whose coefficients represent the local gradient of the nonlinear function. Then, sparse estimators in a vector-valued reproducing kernel Hilbert space estimate those coefficients, and the sparsity pattern of the estimated Hessian reveals the model structure: zero entries correspond to input pairs that never appear together in a subterm. If true, this gives a data-driven way to simplify and interpret nonlinear models without prior structural knowledge.

What carries the argument

The central object is the trajectory-scheduled LPV approximation of the nonlinear system. Under small-signal operation, the unknown nonlinear mapping is approximated as a linear parameter-varying system whose coefficients are the gradient of the unknown function; the Jacobian of these coefficients is the Hessian. Structure detection then becomes a sparse estimation problem: two vector-valued RKHS estimators produce the LPV coefficients with group-sparsity constraints, so that zero blocks in the Hessian correspond to input pairs that never appear together in a nonlinear subterm.

What would settle it

Simulate a known sparse additive system, for example $f(x_1,x_2,x_3)=g_1(x_1)+g_{23}(x_2,x_3)$, run the proposed estimator, and check whether the estimated Hessian indeed has a zero $(1,2)$ block and a nonzero $(2,3)$ block. A more pointed test: restrict the nonlinearity to a region that the operating-point trajectory rarely visits; the method should fail to detect that subterm, which would confirm that structure detection depends on the operating points adequately covering the input space.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the additive decomposition of a sparse additive nonlinear model is identifiable from local gradient and Hessian information obtained by linearizing the system around varying operating points. The LPV coefficients represent the gradient and indicate input sensitivity; the Jacobian of those coefficients is the Hessian, whose non-zero pattern encodes which inputs are coupled in the same nonlinear subterm. The paper introduces two RKHS-based sparse estimators that estimate these coefficients while preserving structural relationships, and the sparsified Hessian then reveals the model structure, with numerical simulations confirming the approach's effectiveness.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that local linearizations around the operating points visited by the data carry enough information about the global additive structure — that the operating points adequately explore the input space and the nonlinearity is smooth enough for the sparsity pattern of the Hessian to reflect the true model decomposition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Structure detection for additive nonlinear models becomes a sparse linear estimation problem on local gradients and Hessians, bypassing the combinatorial search over subterm groupings.
  • Model simplification can be automated: the estimated structure directly suggests a reduced-parameter nonlinear model with fewer subterms.
  • Input sensitivity as LPV coefficients gives an interpretable, data-driven measure of which inputs matter and at what operating points.
  • The Hessian sparsity test gives a practical criterion for additive separability of a black-box nonlinear map.
  • Because the estimators are RKHS-based, the approach inherits a functional-regularization view and computational recipes for the sparse estimation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same linearization-then-sparsify logic could carry over to discrete-time systems and to other structured nonlinear classes such as Wiener–Hammerstein models, where local linear approximations play the role of the LPV embedding.
  • The small-signal assumption implicitly recommends an experimental-design strategy: excitation should sweep operating points rather than only amplitudes, so that the Hessian is identifiable across the input space.
  • One can test the sensitivity of the detected structure to the choice of scheduling parameters and kernel; if the structure is stable across those choices, that would be evidence the method has found a real property of the underlying nonlinear function.
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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript under review, arXiv:2508.01453, is titled 'Kernel-Based Sparse Additive Nonlinear Model Structure Detection through a Linearization Approach' and its abstract describes a method for identifying the additive structure of sparse nonlinear systems by approximating them as trajectory-scheduled LPV systems, estimating LPV coefficients with two RKHS-based sparse estimators, and reading off structure from sparsity patterns in the gradient and Hessian. However, the body of the manuscript provided for review is not that paper; it is a completely different paper, 'Towards Efficient Medical Reasoning with Minimal Fine-Tuning Data' by Zhuang et al., which addresses data selection for medical vision-language models. Consequently, the claimed method, its derivations, algorithms, and numerical simulations are entirely absent from the submitted text.

Significance. If the method described in the abstract were fully developed and validated, it could be a meaningful contribution to nonlinear system identification: detecting the additive decomposition and input spaces of sparse additive nonlinear models from input-output data is a useful and non-obvious capability. The abstract's pipeline of LPV linearization, sparse RKHS estimation, and Hessian-based structure reading is plausible and potentially significant. However, because the submitted manuscript contains none of the supporting derivations, estimators, or experiments, the significance cannot be assessed. No claim in the abstract can be verified or falsified from the provided text.

major comments (2)
  1. [Entire manuscript] The full text submitted for arXiv:2508.01453 is instead the paper 'Towards Efficient Medical Reasoning with Minimal Fine-Tuning Data' (Zhuang et al.), which is a cs.CL paper about data selection for medical reasoning and has no connection to nonlinear system identification. None of the content described in the abstract—the trajectory-scheduled LPV approximation, the vector-valued RKHS sparse estimators, the Hessian-based structure detection, or the numerical simulations—appears anywhere in the body. This is a load-bearing gap: the central claim of the paper is completely unsupported by the manuscript as submitted, and no technical assessment of correctness, novelty, or experimental validity is possible.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract promises 'two sparse estimators within a vector-valued Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS) framework' and states that 'two computationally tractable RKHS-based estimators' are proposed, yet the manuscript body contains no equations, no algorithm descriptions, and no derivation of these estimators. Similarly, the claimed 'sparsified Hessian matrix reveals the NL model's structure' is asserted without any formal statement of how sparsity is induced or how structure is read off. Even if one treated the abstract as an extended summary, the absence of the actual technical content prevents any check of the method's correctness or completeness.
minor comments (2)
  1. [References] The reference list in the provided body is entirely that of the medical data selection paper and contains no citations to the literature on LPV system identification, sparse additive models, or RKHS-based estimation. This further confirms that the submitted text is not the paper advertised in the title and abstract.
  2. [Limitations paragraph (unrelated body text)] The only limitation statement in the submitted body pertains to the medical data selection paper (not evaluating on very large LLMs). It is unrelated to the abstract's claims about nonlinear system structure detection, and therefore cannot serve as a limitation statement for the claimed contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identified; the provided full text is a different paper, so the claimed eess.SY derivation chain is absent and cannot be assessed for self-reference.

full rationale

The submission's abstract claims a trajectory-scheduled LPV/RKHS method in which 'the sparsified Hessian matrix reveals the NL model's structure,' but the full text supplied is 'Towards Efficient Medical Reasoning with Minimal Fine-Tuning Data' (cs.CL), not the eess.SY paper. There are no equations, algorithms, or simulations for the kernel-based sparse additive structure-detection method, so no derivation chain exists whose predictions could be compared with its inputs. The DIQ medical-reasoning text is a forward pipeline: difficulty from a BiomedBERT classifier, influence from gradient dot products, quadrant-based selection, then fine-tuning evaluation. I find no self-definitional step, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation; the single citation to the first author's prior work (ref. [37]) is contextual. The paper's stated limitation ('Due to computational resource constraints, we have not yet evaluated DIQ on very large LLMs') is a scale limitation, not a circularity. The mismatch is a missing-support and provenance problem that blocks correctness assessment, but it is not evidence of circularity, and the instructions prohibit manufacturing circularity absent a specific reduction. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The abstract introduces no new physical entities. The assumptions listed are modeling premises required for the method to work: the validity of the LPV approximation, the correspondence between derivative sparsity and model structure, and the consistency of the sparse estimators.

free parameters (2)
  • small-signal operating range = not specified
    The linearization is valid only under small-signal operation, which requires choosing an amplitude or operating point range that affects the quality of the LPV approximation.
  • regularization hyperparameters of sparse RKHS estimators = not specified
    Sparse estimation typically involves penalty weights or kernel parameters; these are not detailed in the abstract.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The nonlinear system can be represented by a trajectory-scheduled LPV model under small-signal operation.
    Central premise that local linearizations across operating points are sufficient to capture the nonlinear function's structure.
  • domain assumption The sparsity pattern of the gradient and Hessian corresponds one-to-one with the additive structure of the nonlinear function.
    The method interprets nonzero derivatives as indicating active inputs and coupled subterms, which assumes this correspondence holds.
  • domain assumption The RKHS estimators consistently recover the true support of the coefficients.
    The method relies on the sparse estimators to correctly identify nonzero coefficients without error.
  • domain assumption The nonlinear function is at least twice differentiable.
    The use of the Hessian requires second-order derivatives to exist.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kernel-Based Sparse Additive Nonlinear Model Structure Detection through a Linearization Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLGCCFD5

@misc{pith2026250801453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kernel-Based Sparse Additive Nonlinear Model Structure Detection through a Linearization Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLGCCFD5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.01453}
}
read the original abstract

The choice of parameterization in Nonlinear (NL) system models greatly affects the quality of the estimated model. Overly complex models can be impractical and hard to interpret, necessitating data-driven methods for simpler and more accurate representations. In this paper, we propose a data-driven approach to simplify a class of continuous-time NL system models using linear approximations around varying operating points. Specifically, for sparse additive NL models, our method identifies the number of NL subterms and their corresponding input spaces. Under small-signal operation, we approximate the unknown NL system as a trajectory-scheduled Linear Parameter-Varying (LPV) system, with LPV coefficients representing the gradient of the NL function and indicating input sensitivity. Using this sensitivity measure, we determine the NL system's structure through LPV model reduction by identifying non-zero LPV coefficients and selecting scheduling parameters. We introduce two sparse estimators within a vector-valued Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS) framework to estimate the LPV coefficients while preserving their structural relationships. The structure of the sparse additive NL model is then determined by detecting non-zero elements in the gradient vector (LPV coefficients) and the Hessian matrix (Jacobian of the LPV coefficients). We propose two computationally tractable RKHS-based estimators for this purpose. The sparsified Hessian matrix reveals the NL model's structure, with numerical simulations confirming the approach's effectiveness.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Benchmarking large language models on answering and explaining challenging medical questions

    Hanjie Chen, Zhouxiang Fang, Yash Singla, and Mark Dredze. Benchmarking large language models on answering and explaining challenging medical questions. InProceed- ings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3563–3599, Albuqu...

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Huatuogpt-o1, towards medical complex reasoning with llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18925, 2024

    Junying Chen, Zhenyang Cai, Ke Ji, Xidong Wang, Wan- long Liu, Rongsheng Wang, Jianye Hou, and Benyou Wang. Huatuogpt-o1, towards medical complex reasoning with llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18925, 2024. 2, 4, 5

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities, 2025

    Google DeepMind. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities, 2025. 2, 5

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2407,

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Ab- hishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2407,

  5. [5]

    Large language models lack essential metacognition for reliable medical reasoning.Nature com- munications, 16(1):642, 2025

    Maxime Griot, Coralie Hemptinne, Jean Vanderdonckt, and Demet Yuksel. Large language models lack essential metacognition for reliable medical reasoning.Nature com- munications, 16(1):642, 2025. 5

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Domain-specific language model pre- training for biomedical natural language processing.ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare (HEALTH), 3(1): 1–23, 2021

    Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. Domain-specific language model pre- training for biomedical natural language processing.ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare (HEALTH), 3(1): 1–23, 2021. 2, 3, 4

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

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

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025. 1, 5

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, yelong shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. InIn- ternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. 6

    work page 2022

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Clini- calbert: Modeling clinical notes and predicting hospital read- mission.arXiv:1904.05342, 2019

    Kexin Huang, Jaan Altosaar, and Rajesh Ranganath. Clini- calbert: Modeling clinical notes and predicting hospital read- mission.arXiv:1904.05342, 2019. 4

    1904 arXiv

  2. [10]

    m1: Unleash the potential of test-time scaling for medical reasoning with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00869, 2025

    Xiaoke Huang, Juncheng Wu, Hui Liu, Xianfeng Tang, and Yuyin Zhou. m1: Unleash the potential of test-time scaling for medical reasoning with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00869, 2025. 2, 4

    2025

  3. [11]

    What disease does this patient have? a large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams.Applied Sciences, 11(14):6421,

    Di Jin, Eileen Pan, Nassim Oufattole, Wei-Hung Weng, Hanyi Fang, and Peter Szolovits. What disease does this patient have? a large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams.Applied Sciences, 11(14):6421,

  4. [12]

    Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions

    Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. InInternational confer- ence on machine learning, pages 1885–1894. PMLR, 2017. 2

    2017

  5. [13]

    Medguide: Benchmark- ing clinical decision-making in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11613, 2025

    Xiaomin Li, Mingye Gao, Yuexing Hao, Taoran Li, Guangya Wan, Zihan Wang, and Yijun Wang. Medguide: Benchmark- ing clinical decision-making in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11613, 2025. 5

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A generalist medical language model for disease diagnosis assistance.Nature Medicine, pages 1–11, 2025

    Xiaohong Liu, Hao Liu, Guoxing Yang, Zeyu Jiang, Shuguang Cui, Zhaoze Zhang, Huan Wang, Liyuan Tao, Yongchang Sun, Zhu Song, et al. A generalist medical language model for disease diagnosis assistance.Nature Medicine, pages 1–11, 2025. 1

    2025

  7. [15]

    Towards accurate differential diagnosis with large language models.Nature, pages 1–7, 2025

    Daniel McDuff, Mike Schaekermann, Tao Tu, Anil Palepu, Amy Wang, Jake Garrison, Karan Singhal, Yash Sharma, Shekoofeh Azizi, Kavita Kulkarni, et al. Towards accurate differential diagnosis with large language models.Nature, pages 1–7, 2025. 1

    2025

  8. [16]

    Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. 5

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Medmcqa: A large-scale multi-subject multi- choice dataset for medical domain question answering

    Ankit Pal, Logesh Kumar Umapathi, and Malaikannan Sankarasubbu. Medmcqa: A large-scale multi-subject multi- choice dataset for medical domain question answering. In Proceedings of the Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning, pages 248–260. PMLR, 2022. 3, 4

    2022

  10. [18]

    Humanity’s last exam.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14249, 2025

    Long Phan, Alice Gatti, Ziwen Han, Nathaniel Li, Josephina Hu, Hugh Zhang, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Mohamed Shaa- ban, John Ling, Sean Shi, et al. Humanity’s last exam.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14249, 2025. 3, 5

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Estimating training data influence by trac- ing gradient descent

    Garima Pruthi, Frederick Liu, Satyen Kale, and Mukund Sundararajan. Estimating training data influence by trac- ing gradient descent. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 19920–19930. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. 2, 6

    2020

  12. [20]

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:53728–53741, 2023

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christo- pher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:53728–53741, 2023. 8

    2023

  13. [21]

    Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks, 2019

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks, 2019. 5

    2019

  14. [22]

    Reasonmed: A 370k multi-agent generated dataset for advancing medical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09513, 2025

    Yu Sun, Xingyu Qian, Weiwen Xu, Hao Zhang, Chenghao Xiao, Long Li, Yu Rong, Wenbing Huang, Qifeng Bai, and Tingyang Xu. Reasonmed: A 370k multi-agent generated dataset for advancing medical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09513, 2025. 1, 2

    2025

  15. [23]

    Qwq-32b: Embracing the power of reinforce- ment learning, 2025

    Qwen Team. Qwq-32b: Embracing the power of reinforce- ment learning, 2025. 1, 5

    2025

  16. [24]

    Disentangling reason- ing and knowledge in medical large language models, 2025

    Rahul Thapa, Qingyang Wu, Kevin Wu, Harrison Zhang, Angela Zhang, Eric Wu, Haotian Ye, Suhana Bedi, Nevin Aresh, Joseph Boen, Shriya Reddy, Ben Athiwaratkun, Shuaiwen Leon Song, and James Zou. Disentangling reason- ing and knowledge in medical large language models, 2025. 1, 2, 3

    2025

  17. [25]

    Com- parative benchmarking of the deepseek large language model on medical tasks and clinical reasoning.Nature medicine, pages 1–1, 2025

    Mickael Tordjman, Zelong Liu, Murat Yuce, Valentin Fau- veau, Yunhao Mei, Jerome Hadjadj, Ian Bolger, Haidara Al- mansour, Carolyn Horst, Ashwin Singh Parihar, et al. Com- parative benchmarking of the deepseek large language model on medical tasks and clinical reasoning.Nature...

    2025

  18. [26]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth´ee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi`ere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    MMLU-pro: A more robust and challenging multi- task language understanding benchmark

    Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, Tianle Li, Max Ku, Kai Wang, Alex Zhuang, Rongqi Fan, Xiang Yue, and Wenhu Chen. MMLU-pro: A more robust and challenging multi- task language under...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Smarter, better, faster, longer: A modern bidirectional en- coder for fast, memory efficient, and long context finetuning and inference, 2024

    Benjamin Warner, Antoine Chaffin, Benjamin Clavi ´e, Orion Weller, Oskar Hallstr ¨om, Said Taghadouini, Alexis Gal- lagher, Raja Biswas, Faisal Ladhak, Tom Aarsen, Nathan Cooper, Griffin Adams, Jeremy Howard, and Iacopo Poli. Smarter, better, faster, longer: A modern bidirecti...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Medreason: Eliciting factual medical reasoning steps in llms via knowledge graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00993, 2025

    Juncheng Wu, Wenlong Deng, Xingxuan Li, Sheng Liu, Tao- mian Mi, Yifan Peng, Ziyang Xu, Yi Liu, Hyunjin Cho, Chang-In Choi, et al. Medreason: Eliciting factual medical reasoning steps in llms via knowledge graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00993, 2025. 2, 4, 6

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Knowl- edge or reasoning? a close look at how llms think across domains.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02126, 2025

    Juncheng Wu, Sheng Liu, Haoqin Tu, Hang Yu, Xiaoke Huang, James Zou, Cihang Xie, and Yuyin Zhou. Knowl- edge or reasoning? a close look at how llms think across domains.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02126, 2025. 1

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    LESS: Selecting influential data for targeted instruction tuning

    Mengzhou Xia, Sadhika Malladi, Suchin Gururangan, San- jeev Arora, and Danqi Chen. LESS: Selecting influential data for targeted instruction tuning. InForty-first Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, 2024. 6

    2024

  24. [32]

    Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025. 5

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Limo: Less is more for reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03387, 2025

    Yixin Ye, Zhen Huang, Yang Xiao, Ethan Chern, Shijie Xia, and Pengfei Liu. Limo: Less is more for reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03387, 2025. 2

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Finemedlm-o1: Enhancing the medical reasoning ability of llm from supervised fine-tuning to test-time training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09213, 2025

    Hongzhou Yu, Tianhao Cheng, Ying Cheng, and Rui Feng. Finemedlm-o1: Enhancing the medical reasoning ability of llm from supervised fine-tuning to test-time training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09213, 2025. 2, 4, 5

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Ultramedical: Building specialized generalists in biomedicine

    Kaiyan Zhang, Sihang Zeng, Ermo Hua, Ning Ding, Zhang- Ren Chen, Zhiyuan Ma, Haoxin Li, Ganqu Cui, Biqing Qi, Xuekai Zhu, Xingtai Lv, Hu Jinfang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Bowen Zhou. Ultramedical: Building specialized generalists in biomedicine. InThe Thirty-eight Conference on Neural...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Lima: Less is more for alignment.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:55006–55021, 2023

    Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srinivasan Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, et al. Lima: Less is more for alignment.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:55006–55021, 2023. 2

    2023

  29. [37]

    Meta-rater: A multi-dimensional data selec- tion method for pre-training language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14194, 2025

    Xinlin Zhuang, Jiahui Peng, Ren Ma, Yinfan Wang, Tianyi Bai, Xingjian Wei, Jiantao Qiu, Chi Zhang, Ying Qian, and Conghui He. Meta-rater: A multi-dimensional data selec- tion method for pre-training language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14194, 2025. 5

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Medxpertqa: Benchmarking expert-level medical reasoning and understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18362, 2025

    Yuxin Zuo, Shang Qu, Yifei Li, Zhangren Chen, Xuekai Zhu, Ermo Hua, Kaiyan Zhang, Ning Ding, and Bowen Zhou. Medxpertqa: Benchmarking expert-level medical reasoning and understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18362, 2025. 3, 5 Towards Efficient Medical Reasoning with Minimal F...

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Analysis and Reasoning Process Completeness of Information: Was all key clinical information (history, signs, lab and imaging results, etc.) accurately and comprehensively identified? Synthesis of Information: Was scattered data (symptoms, risk factors, test results) effective...

  32. [40]

    Application of Knowledge Accuracy of Knowledge: Is the applied medical knowledge (e.g., pathophysiology, epidemiology, drug mechanisms) accurate? Adherence to Guidelines: Does the understand- ing of diagnostic criteria and treatment options align with current, accepted clinica...

  33. [41]

    Conclusion and Justification Correctness of Conclusion: Is the final diagnosis and proposed management plan correct? Quality of Justification: Is the reasoning provided for the final conclusion clear, persuasive, and well- supported by the evidence in the case? II. Comprehensi...

  34. [42]

    Level 5 (Excellent): The answer generates a com- prehensive and relevant list of differential diag- noses, including both common and less common but critical possibilities

    Differential Diagnosis (DDx) This category assesses the ability to generate a list of potential diagnoses and systematically narrow it down using logical reasoning. Level 5 (Excellent): The answer generates a com- prehensive and relevant list of differential diag- noses, inclu...

  35. [43]

    It reflects clinical responsibility and risk management

    Safety Check This category assesses the ability to identify, prior- itize, and mitigate potential risks to the patient. It reflects clinical responsibility and risk management. Level 5 (Excellent): The answer demonstrates ex- ceptional foresight. It not only identifies critica...

  36. [44]

    Evidence Citation This category assesses the ability to ground its rea- soning in specific, relevant evidence, both from the patient’s data and from established medical knowl- edge. Level 5 (Excellent): The answer seamlessly in- tegrates multiple pieces of evidence (e.g., symp...

Pith tools

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