Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 25 references

Training-Free Token-Level Steering for LLM Personalized Co-Writing

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 A training-free, token-level steering method lets a small base model outperform a much larger one on specialized co-writing tasks.

desk verdict Strong empirical system paper whose theoretical framing overclaims; the algorithm is a tuned scalar-weighted interpolation, not the derived posterior. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06069 v1 pith:QLO553LS submitted 2026-08-06 cs.CL

Wenhao Mao , Chengbin Hou , Weixiao Wang , Jialiang Zhu , Min Liu , Yibin Hao , Hairong Lv This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords training-freeadaptationtoken-levelsteeringco-writingpersonalizedLLMkerneldensityestimationretrieval-augmentedgenerationkNN-LMLevenshteindistance
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

SteerWrite claims that a large language model can be personalized to a specialized writing style at inference time, with no gradient updates, by correcting the next-token probability using a small external dataset. The paper derives this correction as a Bayesian mixture: the ideal model retrained on the union of pretraining data and the user's data is a weighted combination of the original model's distribution and a distribution built from retrieved, similar contexts in the user's dataset. It then implements that correction with a datastore of hidden states from the base model, rank-based weighting, temporal smoothing, and frequency penalties. On four domain datasets (code, two kinds of medical reports, and law) and on three model sizes, the method reports state-of-the-art reductions in edit distance and keystrokes, and the smallest 0.6B model with steering outperforms the unsteered 4B model on all datasets. If true, this provides a practical route to co-writing assistants that can be updated instantly with new user data, without training.

What carries the argument

The central object is the mixture posterior in Eq. (2): $p(y|x,D)=p(D_1|x)p(y|x,D_1)+p(D_2|x)p(y|x,D_2)$, with $p(D_i|x)\propto p(D_i)p(x|D_i)$. The paper approximates $p(y|x,D_1)$ with the pretrained model's own output distribution and estimates $p(y|x,D_2)$ from a datastore of hidden states taken from the base model's prefill pass over the user dataset. The carrying mechanisms are (1) rank-based calibration, which replaces raw similarity scores with a fixed sparse template so only a small top fraction of retrieved contexts contributes; (2) temporal momentum, which blends current retrieval weights with the previous step's smoothed weights to preserve sequential continuity; and (3) frequency scaling, which down-weights globally frequent tokens to prevent repetition loops. Together these turn a sparse, noisy retrieval signal into a stable token-level steering distribution that is merged with the base posterior before sampling.

What would settle it

Estimate $\log p(x|D_2)/p(x|D_1)$ for many prefixes $x$ from the held-out test sets using a density model or an auxiliary language model trained on both corpora. If the ratio varies by more than a small margin across contexts, then the fixed scalar 0.6 in the implemented algorithm does not match the derivation; a second experiment would compare SteerWrite with a context-dependent ratio estimate and with the scalar set per-context by an oracle, and show whether the scalar version is actually recovering the theoretical mixture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the difference between a generic base model and a model specialized to a small user or domain dataset can be approximated as an inference-time mixture of two token-level distributions. Starting from the posterior over mixed data, the paper writes the ideal retrained model's next-token probability as $p(y|x,D)=p(D_1|x)p(y|x,D_1)+p(D_2|x)p(y|x,D_2)$ and then argues that the first component is the pretrained model itself, while the second can be estimated from retrieved similar contexts in $D_2$ using kernel density estimation. This turns personalization into a local, token-level correction problem: retrieve the nearest contexts in the user's data to the current hidden state, weight them with a calibrated sparse template, smooth the weights across time steps, penalize overly frequent tokens, and sample from the merged distribution. The empirical claim is that this correction outperforms prompt-level RAG and the standard kNN-LM interpolation across all four datasets and most metrics, and that it lets a 0.6-billion-parameter base model beat a standalone 4-billion-parameter model on all four evaluation sets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the influence of the user's dataset relative to pretraining is a single constant across all contexts, so one fixed scalar (0.6 in log space) can stand in for the context-dependent likelihood ratio $p(x|D_2)/p(x|D_1)$; the paper does not measure that ratio.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user's new writing data can be injected into a deployed model in seconds: only an offline prefill pass over the supplementary dataset is needed, and updates require re-encoding the new dataset, not retraining.
  • Small models become competitive with much larger ones on domain-specific co-writing: the 0.6B base model with SteerWrite outperforms the standalone 4B base model on all four datasets tested.
  • Interactive stream-based co-writing is feasible at modest latency: reported time-to-first-token stays below 47 ms and time-per-output-token below 30 ms across tested model sizes.
  • Shorter, periodic suggestions are more efficient than long completions: the generation-length study shows editing-effort reduction degrades with longer windows and can go negative for baselines.
  • The components generalise across model families: on Llama-3.2-1B and 3B, SteerWrite keeps reductions above 50 points where RAG yields near-zero or negative keystroke reductions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The context-dependent likelihood ratio $p(x|D_2)/p(x|D_1)$ is not measured in the paper; the method fixes $\log(p(D_2)/p(D_1))=0.6$. A testable extension would estimate this ratio with a lightweight density model and use it per context, which would show whether the remaining margin comes from the Bayesian correction or from the hand-tuned scalar.
  • Because the datastore is built from the base model's own hidden states, the same mechanism could in principle steer non-textual generation if hidden states from other modalities can be aligned; the paper names multimodality as future work but does not test it.
  • The keystroke and Levenshtein reductions are measured against verbatim ground truth, so gains on AWV and Qwen3 similarity suggest the method is not simply copying retrieved suffixes; a useful stress test is to see whether performance persists when the supplementary dataset contains deliberately varied phrasings of the same content.
  • The framework treats the base model's distribution as a faithful $p(y|x,D_1)$; if a model family's pretraining distribution is poorly calibrated, the mixture correction may need rebalancing, which the paper's scalar already implicitly does.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SteerWrite, a training-free framework for token-level personalized co-writing. At each decoding step, SteerWrite retrieves contexts from a small external dataset using the base model's hidden states, calibrates the retrieval weights with rank-based calibration and temporal momentum, applies frequency scaling, estimates an external next-token distribution via a KDE-style aggregation, and mixes this distribution with the base model's posterior. The authors derive a Bayesian posterior mixture in Section 3, then evaluate on four domain datasets (CodeNet, HMR, UER, Law) with Qwen3-0.6B/1.7B/4B and Llama-3.2 models, reporting large gains in Levenshtein-distance and keystroke reduction as well as similarity metrics. The paper also contributes a benchmark, an evaluation protocol, ablations, runtime measurements, and a public code release.

Significance. The benchmark datasets and evaluation protocol for interactive co-writing are potentially useful, and the empirical gains are large, consistent across model families, and supported by ablations showing that the two stabilization components matter. The paper also reports latency figures and a model-family generalization study, which strengthen the practical contribution. However, the claimed theoretical grounding does not match the implemented algorithm: the derivation requires a context-dependent likelihood ratio that the implementation never computes, and key hyperparameters appear to be selected on the test set. These issues affect the central 'theoretically derived' contribution and the reliability of the reported SOTA margins, though the engineering contribution remains plausible if the theoretical framing is revised.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (2)-(3); Appendix A/E] The derivation of the mixed-data posterior contains the context-dependent likelihood ratio p(x|D2)/p(x|D1), but the implemented SteerWrite never estimates this ratio. Appendix A fixes log[p(D2)/p(D1)] = 0.6 and uses this scalar as the mixture weight for all contexts; rank calibration, temporal momentum, and frequency scaling affect the shape of the external distribution but do not modulate the mixture weight by the likelihood of the current context under D1 versus D2. The algorithm is therefore not the posterior correction derived in Section 3, and the claim that an ideal retrained model is 'effectively approximated' by the procedure is unsupported. The theory section should either be reframed as motivation for a heuristic interpolation, or the likelihood ratio must be estimated and included in the mixture.
  2. [Appendix E, Table 7; Appendix A] The log data ratio is swept over the UER test set (values 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0) and the best value 0.6 is then fixed for all four datasets, so the headline numbers in Table 1 are produced with a hyperparameter chosen on the test set. The same concern applies to the per-model choices of the similarity metric and lambda_2 described in Appendix A as 'according to the empirical behavior' without a held-out validation protocol. Please add a validation split or nested cross-validation and report how Table 1's margins change under this protocol; otherwise the SOTA claims are not statistically trustworthy.
  3. [Section 3, Eqs. (6)-(7); Section 4.3, Eqs. (8)-(10)] The derivation in Section 3 approximates p(y|x,D2) with a kernel density estimate over neighboring contexts, but the implementation replaces kernel weights with a rank-based template, temporal momentum, and frequency scaling. The ablation in Table 8 shows the components are important, but it does not show that the resulting distribution is a principled approximation of the derived posterior. Please clarify whether Section 3 is intended as a formal derivation or as an intuitive motivation; the current text conflates the two and overstates the theoretical grounding.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'wherewL+1 is the special<EOS> token' contains missing spacing and formatting; it should read 'where w_{L+1} is the special <EOS> token'.
  2. [Figure 2] The text sets log[p(D2)/p(D1)] = 1.0 for the visualization, while Appendix A reports 0.6 for the main experiments; please explain or reconcile this inconsistency.
  3. [Table 1] Several entries lack spacing (e.g., '29.4574.9279.49' in the UER RAG row for Qwen3-1.7B-Base), making the table hard to read; please reformat all numeric entries consistently.
  4. [Section 4.3] The rank template B and the 'top fraction' (e.g., 0.1%) are never specified numerically; please provide exact values in Appendix A for reproducibility.
  5. [Section 5.2] The text says greedy decoding is employed, but Figure 1 and Section 4.1 describe 'sampling' from the mixture posterior; please clarify whether tokens are selected by argmax or by sampling.
  6. [Section 5.3] The keystroke metric is described only in a footnote; please provide the exact formula so readers can reproduce the reported reductions.
  7. [Abstract and Section 6] The paper claims 'state-of-the-art' performance, but the comparison is limited to seven training-free baselines; please qualify the claim as state-of-the-art among training-free methods or include additional baselines.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The scalar mixing weight is swept on the UER test set and then reported as a state-of-the-art UER result, while the theoretical Eq. (2) weight is context-dependent and never implemented.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix A (hyperparameter configuration), Appendix E (Data Ratio Analysis, Table 7), Table 1 (UER row)]
    "A critical hyperparameter of the proposed method is the data ratio term presented in Equation (2)... we conduct experiments examining the relationship between model performance and the data ratio. We employ the three models with different parameter sizes and the UER dataset, setting the log data length ratio log p(D2)/p(D1) to values of 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0. ... Specifically, the logarithmic data ratio log p(D2)/p(D1) is set to 0.6."

    The central mixing weight of SteerWrite is not derived from the theory; it is a hyperparameter swept over the UER evaluation set in Table 7, and the value 0.6 is then fixed as the configuration under which Table 1 reports SteerWrite's UER numbers as state-of-the-art. The UER performance is therefore a selection over the test set rather than an out-of-sample prediction of the proposed model. The same evaluation set is used both to fit the scalar and to certify the headline result, which is the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern. Per-model similarity metric and lambda_2 choices in Appendix A are likewise chosen 'according to empirical behavior' on the same evaluation data, further coupling the reported results to the test set.

full rationale

The strongest concrete circularity is the UER test-set tuning of the scalar data ratio: Appendix E sweeps log p(D2)/p(D1) on UER and Appendix A fixes it to 0.6 before Table 1 reports UER as a successful prediction. Other datasets (CodeNet, HMR, Law) use the same fixed scalar without per-dataset tuning, so the framework is not entirely equivalent to its input. Separately, the Section 3 derivation contains a context-dependent likelihood ratio p(x|D2)/p(x|D1) that the implementation never estimates, so the theoretical grounding is incomplete; this is a correctness and reproducibility concern rather than a circularity step. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears, and the ablation study provides independent content. Overall, partial circularity from test-set hyperparameter selection gives a score of 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on a Bayesian mixture derivation that is not actually implemented as derived; the context-dependent likelihood ratio is replaced by a globally fitted scalar, and all stabilizing mechanisms are empirical additions. The axiom ledger therefore includes the mixture assumption, the hidden-state kernel assumption, and the constant-likelihood-ratio assumption, plus four tuned hyperparameters. No new physical or model entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • log data ratio log p(D2)/p(D1) = 0.6 (swept over 0.0-1.0 on UER)
    Global mixing weight between base model posterior and external datastore distribution; in Eq. (2) this term also includes the context-dependent likelihood ratio p(x|D2)/p(x|D1), which the method drops. Selected empirically per benchmark (Appendix A, Appendix E).
  • momentum decay factor lambda_1 = 0.5
    Controls temporal smoothing of retrieval weights in Eq. (8)-(9); fixed value, not swept, but hand-chosen and ablated.
  • frequency scaling penalty lambda_2 = 0 for Qwen3-0.6B, 0.4 for Qwen3-1.7B and Qwen3-4B
    Penalizes globally frequent tokens in Eq. (10); set per model size based on empirical behavior.
  • similarity metric for retrieval = L2 for Qwen3-0.6B, cosine for Qwen3-1.7B and Qwen3-4B
    Chosen per model family based on empirical behavior of representations (Appendix A), not derived from theory.
  • rank template B and top fraction = steep decay, top 0.1% non-zero (exact shape not fully specified)
    Defines the calibrated retrieval distribution in Section 4.3; the concrete template values are not given in the paper.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Bayes' theorem and law of total probability
    Used to expand p(y|x,D) into a mixture over data sources in Section 3, Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption Ideal retrained model equals Bayesian mixture of corpus-conditioned models
    Assumes p(y|x,D1 ∪ D2) = Σ p(Di|x) p(y|x,Di); this is a mixture-of-experts model, not how actual retraining on a concatenated corpus behaves.
  • domain assumption Base model f1 approximates p(y|x,D1)
    The paper assumes the pretrained model's conditional distribution matches the conditional distribution of its pretraining corpus, enabling substitution into Eq. (2).
  • ad hoc to paper Context-dependent likelihood ratio is constant
    The algorithm replaces p(x|D2)/p(x|D1) in Eq. (2) with a single scalar, effectively assuming the ratio does not depend on x (or that tuning the scalar absorbs its variation). This is not stated or tested.
  • domain assumption Kernel density estimate with similarity kernel approximates p(y|x,D2)
    Eq. (6)-(7) replace exact matching with weighted neighborhood counts; assumes the hidden-state similarity is a valid kernel for the token space.
  • domain assumption Datastore hidden states align with query hidden states
    The method uses the base model's prefill hidden states as both datastore representations and query vectors; assumes these live in a shared metric space for the same model, which is plausible but unverified for retrieval quality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Training-Free Token-Level Steering for LLM Personalized Co-Writing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QLO553LS

@misc{pith2026260806069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Training-Free Token-Level Steering for LLM Personalized Co-Writing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QLO553LS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06069}
}
read the original abstract

While Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise for personalization, they often lack specialized domain knowledge. Conventional solutions like fine-tuning struggle with high computational costs and rapid data updates, while Retrieval-Augmented Generation fails to provide fine-grained, token-level steering. Furthermore, chat-based interfaces remain dominant, whereas productive co-writing paradigms have not yet been well exploited beyond the coding domain. To this end, we introduce SteerWrite, a training-free framework designed for personalized co-writing. Our method effectively adapts the base model to specialized domains without gradient updates, with specific designs tailored to small datasets. Experiments demonstrate that SteerWrite achieves state-of-the-art performance across diverse datasets, metrics, and models, significantly reducing human editing effort.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06069 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall framework of SteerWrite. which can be written as: p(xt | x1x2 · · · xt−1, D) (1) For notational convenience, let x<t = x1x2 · · · xt−1 de￾note the current input context. Furthermore, we may omit the subscript and refer to the given context as x and the target token as y, i.e., p(y | x) ≜ p(xt | x<t). By applying Bayes’ theorem, the posterior probability can be expanded as: p(y | x) =p(D1 | x)p(y | x, D1) + p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of the model generation path and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Intuitive Examples of co-writing completions on CodeNet dataset. Text segments identical to the ground truth are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Intuitive Examples of co-writing completions on HMR dataset. Text segments identical to the ground truth are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    test" and

    The supplementary portions are of a practical scale, con- taining 86.9k tokens for CodeNet, 42.6k tokens for HMR, 79.4ktokensforUER,and90.2ktokensforLaw.Asindicated bythedata,whilethereissignificantvariationintokenlength distributions across the four domains, the statistical charac- teristics between the two split subsets within each dataset remain highly...

    work page 2024

  2. [5]

    Joel,S.;Wu,J.;andFard,F.2024

    Fine-tuning and utilization methods of domain-specific llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02981. Joel,S.;Wu,J.;andFard,F.2024. Asurveyonllm-basedcode generation for low-resource and domain-specific program- minglanguages.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology. Khandelwal, U.; Levy, O.; Jurafsky, D.; Zettlemoyer, L.; and Lewis, M

    arXiv 2024

  3. [7]

    InProceedings of the 60th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics (Volume 1: Long papers), 8460–8478

    Internet- augmented dialogue generation. InProceedings of the 60th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics (Volume 1: Long papers), 8460–8478. Lee,M.;Liang,P.;andYang,Q.2022. Coauthor:Designinga human-aicollaborativewritingdatasetforexploringlanguage modelcapabilities.InProceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in c...

    work page 2022

  4. [10]

    https://ai

    The Llama 4 herd: The beginning of a new era of natively multimodal AI innovation. https://ai. meta.com/blog/llama-4-multimodal-intelligence/. Accessed: 2026-01-27. Mysore, S.; Das, D.; Cao, H.; and Sarrafzadeh, B

    work page 2026

  5. [11]

    OpenAI.2025

    Prototypical Human-AI Collaboration Behaviors from LLM-Assisted Writing in the Wild.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16023. OpenAI.2025. IntroducingCodex. https://openai.com/index/ introducing-codex/. Accessed: 2026-01-27. Park, J. S.; O’Brien, J.; Cai, C. J.; Morris, M. R.; Liang, P.; andBernstein,M.S.2023. Generativeagents:Interactivesim- ulacra of human behav...

    arXiv 2025

  6. [12]

    Qin, G.; and Eisner, J

    Codenet: A large-scale ai for code dataset for learning a diversity of coding tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.12655. Qin, G.; and Eisner, J

    arXiv

  7. [13]

    Qwen-Team

    Learning how to ask: Query- ing LMs with mixtures of soft prompts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.06599. Qwen-Team

    arXiv

  8. [14]

    In Extended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 1–7

    Prompt programming for large language models: Beyond the few-shot paradigm. In Extended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 1–7. Shi, W.; Han, X.; Lewis, M.; Tsvetkov, Y.; Zettlemoyer, L.; and Yih, W.-t

    work page 2021

Show all 25 references
  1. [15]

    InProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 2: Short Papers), 783–791

    Trusting your evidence: Hallucinate less with context-aware decoding. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 2: Short Papers), 783–791. Shool,S.;Adimi,S.;SabooriAm...

    2024

  2. [16]

    Tian, Y.; and Zhang, T

    Large language models in medicine.Nature medicine, 29(8): 1930–1940. Tian, Y.; and Zhang, T

    1930

  3. [17]

    Wang, S.; Song, Y.; Drozdov, A.; Garimella, A.; Manjunatha, V.; and Iyyer, M

    Selective prompt anchoring for code generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09121. Wang, S.; Song, Y.; Drozdov, A.; Garimella, A.; Manjunatha, V.; and Iyyer, M. 2023a. kNN-LM does not improve open- ended text generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14625. Wang, Z.; Zhang, G.; Yang, ...

    arXiv

  4. [18]

    Wiratunga, N.; Abeyratne, R.; Jayawardena, L.; Martin, K.; Massie, S.; Nkisi-Orji, I.; Weerasinghe, R.; Liret, A.; and Fleisch, B

    Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652. Wiratunga, N.; Abeyratne, R.; Jayawardena, L.; Martin, K.; Massie, S.; Nkisi-Orji, I.; Weerasinghe, R.; Liret, A.; and Fleisch, B

    arXiv

  5. [19]

    InInternational Conference on Case-Based Rea- soning, 445–460

    CBR-RAG: case-based reasoning for re- trieval augmented generation in LLMs for legal question answering. InInternational Conference on Case-Based Rea- soning, 445–460. Springer. Wu,J.;Zhu,J.;Qi,Y.;Chen,J.;Xu,M.;Menolascina,F.;and Grau,V.2024. Medicalgraphrag:Towardssafemedical...

    2024 arXiv

  6. [21]

    Zhang, Y.; Li, M.; Long, D.; Zhang, X.; Lin, H.; Yang, B.; Xie, P.; Yang, A.; Liu, D.; Lin, J.; et al

    Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388. Zhang, Y.; Li, M.; Long, D.; Zhang, X.; Lin, H.; Yang, B.; Xie, P.; Yang, A.; Liu, D.; Lin, J.; et al

    arXiv

  7. [22]

    Zheng, J.; Hong, H.; Liu, F.; Wang, X.; Su, J.; Liang, Y.; and Wu, S

    Qwen3 Embed- ding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05176. Zheng, J.; Hong, H.; Liu, F.; Wang, X.; Su, J.; Liang, Y.; and Wu, S

    arXiv

  8. [23]

    Ziegler, A.; Kalliamvakou, E.; Li, X

    Fine-tuning large language models for domain-specific machine translation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15061. Ziegler, A.; Kalliamvakou, E.; Li, X. A.; Rice, A.; Rifkin, D.; Simister, S.; Sittampalam, G.; and Aftandilian, E

    arXiv

  9. [25]

    log ratio Lev. key. Jaccard AWV Qwen3 Qwen3-0.6B-Base 0.0 36.73 30.57 35.04 75.73 80.32 0.2 39.30 33.65 37.55 76.61 80.93 0.4 40.07 34.72 38.39 76.82 81.16 0.6 40.53 35.26 38.82 76.83 81.27 0.840.65 35.45 38.98 76.84 81.34 1.0 40.49 35.29 38.88 76.64 81.31 Qwen3-1.7B-Base 0.0 ...

  10. [87]

    Tama:Ahuman-ai collaborative thematic analysis framework using multi-agent llmsforclinicalinterviews.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20666

    Xu, H.; Yi, S.; Lim, T.; Xu, J.; Well, A.; Mery, C.; Zhang, A.; Zhang,Y.;Ji,H.;Pingali,K.;etal.2025a. Tama:Ahuman-ai collaborative thematic analysis framework using multi-agent llmsforclinicalinterviews.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20666. Xu, T.; Chen, L.; Hu, Z.; and Li, B. 2025...

    arXiv

  11. [2018]

    MetaAI.2024.Llama3.2:RevolutionizingedgeAIandvision with open, customizable models

    Umap: Uni- form manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction.arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426. MetaAI.2024.Llama3.2:RevolutionizingedgeAIandvision with open, customizable models. https://ai.meta.com/blog/ llama-3-2-connect-2024-vision-edge-mobile-devices/. Ac- ...

    2024 arXiv

  12. [2019]

    Komeili, M.; Shuster, K.; and Weston, J

    Generalization through memoriza- tion: Nearest neighbor language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00172. Komeili, M.; Shuster, K.; and Weston, J

    1911 arXiv

  13. [2021]

    McInnes, L.; Healy, J.; and Melville, J

    Prefix-tuning: Optimiz- ing continuous prompts for generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00190. McInnes, L.; Healy, J.; and Melville, J

    arXiv

  14. [2022]

    https://github.com/ features/copilot

    GitHub Copilot. https://github.com/ features/copilot. Accessed: 2026-01-27. Jaccard,P.1901. Distributiondelaflorealpinedanslebassin des Dranses et dans quelques régions voisines.Bull Soc Vaudoise Sci Nat, 37: 241–272. Jeong, C

    2026

  15. [2023]

    GitHub, Inc

    Retrieval-augmented generationforlargelanguagemodels:Asurvey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2(1). GitHub, Inc

    arXiv

  16. [2024]

    InProceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 1107–1128

    A survey on in-context learning. InProceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 1107–1128. Dongre, V.; Rossi, R. A.; Lai, V. D.; Yoon, D. S.; Hakkani- Tür, D.; and Bui, T

    2024

  17. [2025]

    Gao, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Gao, X.; Jia, K.; Pan, J.; Bi, Y.; Dai, Y.; Sun, J.; Wang, H.; and Wang, H

    Drift No More? Context Equi- libria in Multi-Turn LLM Interactions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07777. Gao, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Gao, X.; Jia, K.; Pan, J.; Bi, Y.; Dai, Y.; Sun, J.; Wang, H.; and Wang, H

Pith tools

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