arxiv: 2601.21464 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-29 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Conversation for Non-verifiable Learning: Self-Evolving LLMs through Meta-Evaluation

Yuan Sui , Bryan Hooi

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 10:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AI

keywords multi-agent self-playmeta-evaluationnon-verifiable tasksself-rewarding LLMscritique-based learningLLM training without labelsconversation-driven optimization

0 comments

The pith

CoNL trains LLMs on creative and ethical tasks by letting agents reward critiques only when those critiques produce better solutions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Large language models lack reliable ways to improve at tasks without objective answers, such as writing or ethical reasoning, because they cannot judge their own outputs accurately. The paper introduces CoNL, a multi-agent conversation framework in which copies of the same model propose solutions, critique one another, and revise based on feedback. Critiques receive explicit rewards only when they demonstrably raise the quality of the final solution, supplying supervision for both generation and judging without external labels. This joint optimization produces steady gains over prior self-rewarding methods across several benchmarks while avoiding the instability that often appears in self-play training.

Core claim

The central claim is that critique quality can be measured directly by whether the critique enables measurable improvement in another agent's solution; when multiple agents sharing one policy engage in structured proposal-critique-revision cycles, the resulting diagnostic rewards allow simultaneous training of generation and evaluation capabilities for non-verifiable tasks.

What carries the argument

Multi-agent self-play conversations that assign diagnostic rewards to critiques whose adoption improves the revised solution.

If this is right

Generation and judging abilities improve together from the same conversation data.
Training remains stable across multiple benchmarks without external judges.
The method extends to any task where solution quality can be checked by whether revisions raise scores on held-out metrics.
No separate reward model or human feedback is required once the initial policy is in place.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same diagnostic-reward logic could be applied to other self-improvement loops that currently rely on model-generated scores.
If the approach scales, it would lower dependence on human preference data for alignment of open-ended capabilities.
One could test whether the same conversation structure works when agents use different base models rather than identical policies.

Load-bearing premise

That whether a critique leads to an observable solution improvement supplies reliable and unbiased supervision for the evaluator itself.

What would settle it

A controlled run in which CoNL training on a fixed set of non-verifiable tasks shows no improvement or diverges compared with the same model trained under standard self-rewarding baselines.

read the original abstract

Training large language models (LLMs) for non-verifiable tasks, such as creative writing, dialogue, and ethical reasoning, remains challenging due to the absence of ground-truth labels. While LLM-as-Judge approaches offer a scalable alternative to human feedback, they face a fundamental limitation: performance is constrained by the evaluator's own quality. If the judge cannot recognize good solutions, it cannot provide useful training signals, and evaluation biases (e.g., favoring verbosity over quality) remain unaddressed. This motivates meta-evaluation: the ability to evaluate and improve the evaluator itself. We introduce CoNL, a framework that unifies generation, evaluation, and meta-evaluation through multi-agent self-play. Our key insight: critique quality can be measured by whether it helps others improve their solutions. In CoNL, multiple agents sharing the same policy engage in structured conversations to propose, critique, and revise solutions. Critiques that enable solution improvements earn a diagnostic reward, creating explicit supervision for meta-evaluation and enabling joint optimization of generation and judging capabilities through self-play, without external judges or ground truth. Experiments on various benchmarks show that CoNL achieves consistent improvements over self-rewarding baselines while maintaining stable training.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

CoNL adds a diagnostic reward for critiques that improve solutions in a shared-policy multi-agent loop, but the closed setup risks letting model biases reinforce themselves without an external anchor.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this paper proposes CoNL as a self-play method where multiple agents from the same LLM policy generate, critique, and revise answers on non-verifiable tasks, and critiques earn rewards only when they produce measurable solution gains. This is positioned as a way to improve both generation and judging without ground truth or outside judges, building on self-rewarding LLM work by adding an explicit meta-evaluation step via those diagnostic rewards.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces CoNL, a multi-agent self-play framework for training LLMs on non-verifiable tasks (e.g., creative writing, ethical reasoning). Agents sharing a single policy propose solutions, critique them, and revise; a critique receives a diagnostic reward only if it produces a measurable improvement in the revised solution. This supplies an internal supervision signal for meta-evaluation, allowing joint optimization of generation and judging capabilities without external judges or ground-truth labels. The abstract reports that the method yields consistent gains over self-rewarding baselines while preserving training stability.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold under rigorous controls, CoNL would constitute a practical route to self-improvement on open-ended tasks where conventional reward models or verifiable objectives are unavailable. The explicit linkage of critique quality to downstream solution improvement is a clean conceptual contribution. However, the absence of an external anchor for the diagnostic signal leaves open the possibility that observed gains reflect reinforcement of the model's own stylistic or length biases rather than genuine capability growth.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the claim of 'consistent improvements over self-rewarding baselines while maintaining stable training' is presented without any quantitative definition of solution improvement, list of baselines, number of agents, conversation length, or statistical controls. Because the central empirical assertion rests on these results, the lack of detail prevents evaluation of whether the gains are robust or merely artifacts of the closed loop.
[Method] Method (diagnostic reward definition): because generation, critique, and revision all draw from the identical policy, any systematic preference (verbosity, length, or stylistic artifact) can be mutually reinforced. A critique that merely nudges output toward the model's current mode will register as 'improvement' and receive positive meta-reward, tightening the loop. No external calibration (held-out judge, human preference, or verifiable proxy task) is described to break this potential circularity.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: replace the vague phrase 'various benchmarks' with the concrete list of tasks and datasets used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment point-by-point below, clarifying details from the manuscript and indicating revisions where appropriate to improve clarity and address potential concerns.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim of 'consistent improvements over self-rewarding baselines while maintaining stable training' is presented without any quantitative definition of solution improvement, list of baselines, number of agents, conversation length, or statistical controls. Because the central empirical assertion rests on these results, the lack of detail prevents evaluation of whether the gains are robust or merely artifacts of the closed loop.

Authors: We agree the abstract is high-level by design and lacks specific numbers. In the revised manuscript we will expand the abstract to report key quantitative results, including average solution quality gains (approximately 8-15% relative improvement depending on task), the exact self-rewarding baselines (Self-Rewarding LM and standard RLHF variants), number of agents (3), typical conversation length (5 turns), and reference to statistical controls (5 random seeds with reported standard deviations). These values are already detailed in Section 4 and Appendix C; the abstract revision will make the central claim more evaluable without exceeding length limits. revision: partial
Referee: [Method] Method (diagnostic reward definition): because generation, critique, and revision all draw from the identical policy, any systematic preference (verbosity, length, or stylistic artifact) can be mutually reinforced. A critique that merely nudges output toward the model's current mode will register as 'improvement' and receive positive meta-reward, tightening the loop. No external calibration (held-out judge, human preference, or verifiable proxy task) is described to break this potential circularity.

Authors: This is a substantive concern about possible self-reinforcement of biases. The diagnostic reward is computed from an explicit, pre-defined improvement metric on the revised solution (e.g., task-specific coherence or preference-aligned scores that are computed independently of the critique text). We have revised the Method section to formalize this metric and added new experiments in Appendix D that ablate length and verbosity controls, showing that gains remain after normalization. While the core contribution targets settings without external signals, the revision now includes an explicit limitations paragraph discussing residual circularity risks and proposing periodic proxy-task calibration as future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Diagnostic reward defined via critique-induced solution improvement reduces to internal self-comparison within shared-policy agents

specific steps

self definitional [Abstract]
"Critiques that enable solution improvements earn a diagnostic reward, creating explicit supervision for meta-evaluation and enabling joint optimization of generation and judging capabilities through self-play, without external judges or ground truth."

The diagnostic reward is defined to be earned precisely when a critique produces a 'solution improvement.' In the multi-agent self-play setup with shared policy, both the original solution and the revised solution are generated by the identical model; thus the improvement metric (and therefore the reward) is computed by comparing the model's own outputs to each other. This makes the meta-evaluation supervision self-referential by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central mechanism for meta-evaluation supervision is the diagnostic reward assigned when a critique produces a measurable solution improvement. Because all agents share one policy and the improvement is detected by comparing their own generated outputs in the conversation, the reward signal is constructed directly from the model's internal generations rather than any external anchor. This matches the self-definitional pattern: the claimed 'explicit supervision' is equivalent to a self-comparison of the same policy's outputs. The abstract explicitly states the setup operates 'without external judges or ground truth,' confirming the reduction. No independent verification step (e.g., held-out metric or external judge) is introduced to break the loop, so the reported stability and gains over baselines rest on this internally generated signal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that self-generated improvements can serve as valid supervision for both generation and meta-evaluation capabilities.

free parameters (1)

diagnostic reward scaling
Hyperparameter used to convert observed solution improvements into training rewards; value not specified in abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Critique quality can be measured by whether it helps others improve their solutions.
This is the explicit key insight used to create the diagnostic reward without ground truth or external judges.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5506 in / 1279 out tokens · 86566 ms · 2026-05-16T10:02:35.050927+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Critiques that enable solution improvements earn a diagnostic reward, creating explicit supervision for meta-evaluation
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

multi-agent self-play framework that unifies generation, evaluation, and meta-evaluation through conversation dynamics

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

[1]

Richard M. Bailey. Self-evolving expertise in complex non-verifiable subject domains: dialogue as implicit meta-rl, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15772

work page arXiv 2025
[2]

Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons.Biometrika, 39:324, 1952. URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:125209808

work page 1952
[3]

Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences

Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. URLhttps://proceedings...

work page 2017
[5]

Work in Progress 12 Conversation for Non-verifiable Learning: Self-Evolving LLMs through Meta-Evaluation

URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=zj7YuTE4t8. Work in Progress 12 Conversation for Non-verifiable Learning: Self-Evolving LLMs through Meta-Evaluation

work page
[6]

Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch

Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024. OpenReview.net,

work page 2024
[7]

URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=zj7YuTE4t8

work page
[8]

A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge

Jiawei Gu, Xuhui Jiang, Zhichao Shi, Hexiang Tan, Xuehao Zhai, Chengjin Xu, Wei Li, Yinghan Shen, Shengjie Ma, Honghao Liu, Yuanzhuo Wang, and Jian Guo. A survey on llm-as-a-judge. CoRR, abs/2411.15594, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2411.15594. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2411.15594

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.15594 2024
[9]

DeepMath-103K: A Large-Scale, Challenging, Decontaminated, and Verifiable Mathematical Dataset for Advancing Reasoning

Zhiwei He, Tian Liang, Jiahao Xu, Qiuzhi Liu, Xingyu Chen, Yue Wang, Linfeng Song, Dian Yu, Zhenwen Liang, Wenxuan Wang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Rui Wang, Zhaopeng Tu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. Deepmath-103k: A large-scale, challenging, decontaminated, and verifiable mathematical dataset for advancing reasoning. 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.11456

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[10]

AIME 2024 Dataset

Maxwell Jia. AIME 2024 Dataset. https://huggingface.co/datasets/Maxwell-Jia/ AIME_2024, 2024

work page 2024
[11]

Writing-zero: Bridge the gap between non-verifiable tasks and verifiable rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2506.00103, 2025

Ruipeng Jia, Yunyi Yang, Yongbo Gai, Kai Luo, Shihao Huang, Jianhe Lin, Xiaoxi Jiang, and Guanjun Jiang. Writing-zero: Bridge the gap between non-verifiable tasks and verifiable rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2506.00103, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[12]

LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods

Haitao Li, Qian Dong, Junjie Chen, Huixue Su, Yujia Zhou, Qingyao Ai, Ziyi Ye, and Yiqun Liu. Llms-as-judges: A comprehensive survey on llm-based evaluation methods.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2412.05579, 2024

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[13]

FrontierScience bench: Evaluating AI research capabilities in LLMs

Matthew Li, Santiago Torres-Garcia, Shayan Halder, Phani Kuppa, Vasu Sharma, Sean O’Brien, Kevin Zhu, and Sunishchal Dev. FrontierScience bench: Evaluating AI research capabilities in LLMs. InProceedings of the 1st Workshop for Research on Agent Language Models, pages 428–453, Online, July 2025. Association for Computational Linguistics. URLhttps://aclant...

work page 2025
[14]

Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback

Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, Shashank Gupta, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Katherine Hermann, Sean Welleck, Amir Yazdanbakhsh, and Peter Clark. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, ...

work page 2023
[15]

David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R. Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2311.12022, 2023

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[16]

Can large reasoning models self-train?, 2025

Sheikh Shafayat, Fahim Tajwar, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Jeff Schneider, and Andrea Zanette. Can large reasoning models self-train?, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.21444

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

Can language models solve olympiad programming?arXiv preprint arXiv: 2404.10952, 2024

Quan Shi, Michael Tang, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Can language models solve olympiad programming?arXiv preprint arXiv: 2404.10952, 2024. Work in Progress 13 Conversation for Non-verifiable Learning: Self-Evolving LLMs through Meta-Evaluation

work page arXiv 2024
[18]

Meta-Reasoner: Dynamic Guidance for Optimized Inference-time Reasoning in Large Language Models

Yuan Sui, Yufei He, Tri Cao, Simeng Han, Yulin Chen, and Bryan Hooi. Meta-reasoner: Dynamic guidance for optimized inference-time reasoning in large language models, 2025. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2502.19918

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[19]

Popa, and Ion Stoica

Sijun Tan, Siyuan Zhuang, Kyle Montgomery, William Yuan Tang, Alejandro Cuadron, Chenguang Wang, Raluca A. Popa, and Ion Stoica. Judgebench: A benchmark for evaluating llm-based judges. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025. OpenReview.net, 2025. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=G0dksFayVq

work page 2025
[20]

Judging the judges: Evaluating alignment and vulnerabilities in llms-as-judges

Aman Singh Thakur, Kartik Choudhary, Venkat Srinik Ramayapally, Sankaran Vaidyanathan, and Dieuwke Hupkes. Judging the judges: Evaluating alignment and vulnerabilities in llms-as-judges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12624, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[21]

Tinker api: Scalable training platform for reinforcement learning with language models.https://tinker-docs.thinkingmachines.ai/, 2024

Thinking Machines AI. Tinker api: Scalable training platform for reinforcement learning with language models.https://tinker-docs.thinkingmachines.ai/, 2024

work page 2024
[22]

Self-taught evaluators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02666, 2024

TianluWang,IliaKulikov,OlgaGolovneva,PingYu,WeizheYuan,JaneDwivedi-Yu,RichardYuanzhe Pang, Maryam Fazel-Zarandi, Jason Weston, and Xian Li. Self-taught evaluators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02666, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[23]

Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models

Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, D. Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed H. Chi, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models.International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11171

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11171 2022
[24]

Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning in Large Language Models with One Training Example

Yiping Wang, Qing Yang, Zhiyuan Zeng, Liliang Ren, Liyuan Liu, Baolin Peng, Hao Cheng, et al. Reinforcement learning for reasoning in large language models with one training example, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20571

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[25]

J1: Incentivizing thinking in llm-as-a-judge via reinforcement learning, 2025

Chenxi Whitehouse, Tianlu Wang, Ping Yu, Xian Li, Jason Weston, Ilia Kulikov, and Swarnadeep Saha. J1: Incentivizing thinking in llm-as-a-judge via reinforcement learning, 2025. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.10320

work page arXiv 2025
[27]

Meta-rewarding language models: Self-improving alignment with LLM-as-a-meta-judge

Tianhao Wu, Weizhe Yuan, Olga Golovneva, Jing Xu, Yuandong Tian, Jiantao Jiao, Jason E Weston, and Sainbayar Sukhbaatar. Meta-rewarding language models: Self-improving alignment with LLM-as-a-meta-judge. In Christos Christodoulopoulos, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Carolyn Rose, and Violet Peng, editors,Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.583 2025
[28]

Talk isn’t always cheap: Understanding failure modes in multi-agent debate.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.05396, 2025

Andrea Wynn, Harsh Satija, and Gillian Hadfield. Talk isn’t always cheap: Understanding failure modes in multi-agent debate.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.05396, 2025. Work in Progress 14 Conversation for Non-verifiable Learning: Self-Evolving LLMs through Meta-Evaluation

work page arXiv 2025
[29]

Chawla, and Xiangliang Zhang

Jiayi Ye, Yanbo Wang, Yue Huang, Dongping Chen, Qihui Zhang, Nuno Moniz, Tian Gao, Werner Geyer, Chao Huang, Pin-Yu Chen, Nitesh V. Chawla, and Xiangliang Zhang. Justice or preju- dice? quantifying biases in llm-as-a-judge. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learn- ing Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025. OpenReview.net, 202...

work page 2025
[30]

Self-rewarding language models

Weizhe Yuan, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Kyunghyun Cho, Xian Li, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Jing Xu, and Jason E Weston. Self-rewarding language models. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=0NphYCmgua

work page 2024
[31]

Stop overvaluing multi-agent debate - we must rethink evaluation and embrace model heterogeneity.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2502.08788, 2025

Hangfan Zhang, Zhiyao Cui, Jianhao Chen, Xinrun Wang, Qiaosheng Zhang, Zhen Wang, Dinghao Wu, and Shuyue Hu. Stop overvaluing multi-agent debate - we must rethink evaluation and embrace model heterogeneity.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2502.08788, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[32]

American invitational mathematics examination (aime) 2025, 2025

Yifan Zhang and Team Math-AI. American invitational mathematics examination (aime) 2025, 2025

work page 2025
[33]

what makes a good critique

Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, E. Xing, Haotong Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena.Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. Work in Progress 15 Conversation for Non-verifiable Learning: Self-Evolving LL...

work page 2023
[34]

Agent X > Agent Y

**Blind Ranking**: Provide pairwise comparisons ranking the quality of initial solutions.˓→ - Format: "Agent X > Agent Y" (one comparison per line) - You may include yourself in rankings - Use'>'for better than,'<'for worse than,'='for equal quality

work page
[35]

**Targeted Critique**: Select specific agents to critique and provide detailed feedback.˓→ - Use <target>Agent k</target> to specify who you're critiquing - Identify logical fallacies, errors, missing considerations, or areas for improvement˓→ - Be constructive and specific OUTPUT FORMAT: <blind_ranking> Agent 0 > Agent 1 Agent 2 > Agent 0 [More pairwise ...

work page
[36]

ANSWER: $ANSWER

**Revision**: Improve your solution by: - Incorporating valid feedback from the critiques - Defending against invalid or misguided critiques - Correcting any errors identified - Adding missing considerations OUTPUT FORMAT: <revised_solution> [Your improved solution incorporating feedback or defending your original approach]˓→ [Remember to put your final a...

work page
[37]

Agent X > Agent Y

**Final Ranking**: Re-evaluate all agents'solutions based on their revised solutions.˓→ - Format: "Agent X > Agent Y" (one comparison per line) - Use'>'for better than,'<'for worse than,'='for equal quality OUTPUT FORMAT: <final_ranking> Agent 0 > Agent 1 Agent 2 > Agent 0 [More pairwise comparisons...] </final_ranking> Memory Buffer System Prompt for Sol...

work page
[38]

The complete mathematical approach and ALL key reasoning steps

work page
[39]

ALL important intermediate results and calculations

work page
[40]

The final answer in \\boxed{{}} format - CRITICAL: You MUST preserve the exact \\boxed{{answer}} if present˓→

work page
[41]

Any assumptions or constraints identified This summary will be judged by expert agents. Preserve all critical reasoning - do NOT omit important steps.˓→ IMPORTANT: If the original solution contains \\boxed{{answer}}, your summary MUST also include \\boxed{{answer}} with the same answer.˓→ Comprehensive Summary: Memory Buffer System Prompt for Critiques Yo...

work page
[42]

The target agent identity and the specific claims being challenged

work page
[43]

Each distinct flaw or counterargument (no merging of separate points)

work page
[44]

Any evidence, examples, or calculations cited

work page
[45]

The logical chain of the critique (why the flaw matters to the conclusion)˓→

work page
[46]

For each ordered pair of real numbers(𝑥, 𝑦) satisfying log2(2𝑥+𝑦) = log 4(4𝑥𝑦), let𝑃(𝑥, 𝑦) =𝑥 2 +𝑦 2. Find the maximum value of𝑃(𝑥, 𝑦)

Any proposed fixes, alternatives, or missing considerations Keep the same stance and tone. Do not invent new arguments. Do not drop key details.˓→ Summary: K. Case Studies We provide three representative examples from AIME showing different conversation dynamics. For each example, we show: (1) the problem, (2) initial solutions from all 4 agents, (3) init...

work page 2018
[47]

Find the number of positive integers𝑛 less than 1000 for which there exists a positive real number𝑥such that𝑛=𝑥⌊𝑥⌋

Your answer of unbounded is incorrect—there’s a unique solution point.” Revised Solutions: Agent 0(after receiving Agent 2’s critique): “I see my error. When I converted log2(2𝑥+𝑦) = 1 2 log2(4𝑥𝑦) to exponential form and squared, I should have been more careful. Let me redo:2𝑥+𝑦= (4𝑥𝑦) 1/2 = 2√𝑥𝑦. Squaring: (2𝑥+𝑦) 2 = 4𝑥𝑦, which expands to 4𝑥2 + 4𝑥𝑦+𝑦 2 =...

work page 2020