Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 80 references

NeSyFS: A Neuro-symbolic Fast-Slow Thinking Framework for LLM Agent under Partial Observability

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read NeSyFS argues that an LLM agent under partial observability should carry its belief about the world as a knowledge graph, and that combining a fast reactive actor, a stepwise reflection check, and a twisted-sequential-Monte-Carlo-style part

desk verdict The KG-as-belief-state integration is a real contribution and the empirical gains are big, but the TSMC framing is largely decorative—the Algorithm 2 weight update doesn't match the theory the paper leans on. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28942 v2 pith:3L2GJGM6 submitted 2026-07-31 cs.AI

Duo Xu , Faramarz Fekri This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords neuro-symbolicLLMagentspartialobservabilityknowledgegraphbeliefstatefast-slowthinkingtwistedsequentialMonteCarloplanningunderuncertaintyself-reflection
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 argues that LLM agents acting from partial observations should maintain their memory of the world as a knowledge graph rather than as raw interaction history. It introduces NeSyFS, in which a dynamically updated KG supplies concise triplets as context for three cooperating modules: a fast reactive actor, a third-person reflection check that catches actions misaligned with the task, and a slow planning module guided by a twisted sequential Monte Carlo-style particle filter. On ALFWorld, WebShop, and ScienceWorld, the framework reports large success-rate gains over full-history, summarization, tree-search, and fast-slow baselines across three LLM backbones. If correct, the result implies that structured symbolic state representations and uncertainty-aware resampling can substitute for longer prompts and exhaustive search in LLM agent design.

What carries the argument

The memory knowledge graph G=(V,E) stores triplets of the forms (entity, relationship, entity), (entity, attribute, value), and (entity, past-tense verb, entity); it is updated by Update(G,o,a) and queried by R(G,η). Fast thinking calls LLM(P_fast; R(G_t), o_t, η) to produce reactive actions with chain-of-thought. Reflection uses LLM(P_ref; a_t, o_t, R(G_t), η) with self-consistency over five samples and an 80% threshold. Slow thinking follows TSMC: N=6 particles, planning horizon L=5, weights updated as ω_i,τ = exp(λ δ_i,τ) where δ is a binary LLM progress judgment, then resampling from a categorical distribution over weights; after L steps a uniform particle's first planned action is execu

What would settle it

Run NeSyFS on a fixed set of ALFWorld or WebShop tasks while replacing the LLM progress detector delta with labels flipped at a fixed rate (e.g., 50% mislabeled), keeping the KG memory and reflection unchanged. If success rates stay near the reported level, the particle resampling is not doing the work attributed to it; if they fall to the no-planning baseline level, the simplified weight update is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that replacing the action-observation history with a knowledge-graph belief state significantly improves LLM agent performance under partial observability. Each observation is parsed into triplets that update a KG; task-relevant triplets are retrieved as context for action, reflection, and planning. The slow-thinking module maintains particles representing possible future KGs, propagates them with LLM-predicted actions and observations, scores each transition with a binary LLM judgment of task progress, and resamples accordingly. The paper claims this TSMC-style planner outperforms beam search and tree-search planning at lower token cost, and th

Load-bearing premise

The whole planning advantage rests on the binary LLM judgment of 'does this step make task progress' being trustworthy enough to stand in for the full twisted sequential Monte Carlo weight, even though the full likelihood ratio in the TSMC update is omitted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • KG-based context should generalize beyond the three benchmark environments: any agentic setting with textual observations and hidden state can use retrieved triplets instead of full history.
  • Because binary progress judgments are easier to elicit than fractional scores, lightweight LLM progress detectors may be sufficient for particle guidance, lowering planning cost.
  • Reflection at the step level, conditioned on a concise state, should catch misaligned actions earlier than episode-level verbal reflection.
  • TSMC-style planning's fixed particle count makes planning cost predictable and roughly linear in horizon, unlike tree search whose cost grows with branching factor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The theoretical transfer from TSMC to this planner is incomplete: the omitted likelihood ratio can bias resampling unless the binary progress signal correlates strongly with true progress, so the particle filter's benefit should be tested separately from the benchmark gains.
  • The KG itself acts as an interpretable belief state; one could extract the agent's evolving world model from the triplets to audit where it goes wrong, something full-history agents do not offer.
  • The same architecture could be extended to learned twist functions (e.g., a trained process-reward model) in place of the binary LLM judgment, potentially closing the gap to full TSMC while keeping the KG context.
  • The fast-slow switch triggered by repeated reflection failures could be made adaptive, for example by estimating the entropy of the particle weights, to cut token use further.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes NeSyFS, a neuro-symbolic framework for LLM agents in partially observable environments. It maintains a knowledge-graph (KG) belief state that is updated with each observation and used as structured context for every module. The fast-thinking module generates reactive actions from KG-retrieved triplets; a reflection module evaluates each action against the task objective and can invoke a slow-thinking module after repeated failures. The slow-thinking module is a planner inspired by twisted sequential Monte Carlo (TSMC), maintaining N particles that predict future actions, observations, and KG states, with weights updated by exp(λδ) where δ is a binary LLM judgment of task progress. The framework is evaluated on ALFWorld, WebShop, and ScienceWorld with GPT-5, GPT-5-mini, and Llama-3.3-70B, reporting large gains over ReAct, Reflexion, ABBEL, RAFA, and SwiftSage. Additional experiments evaluate the reflection module, the task-progress detector, and token efficiency against a tree-search planner.

Significance. If the results hold, NeSyFS would be a practically significant contribution: it couples a structured symbolic memory with fast and slow LLM reasoning and reports large success-rate gains across three benchmarks and three base LLMs. The controlled comparisons in Figure 5, Figure 7, and Table 4 address meaningful questions about the contribution of KG context and of the planner. However, the central theoretical claim—that the slow-thinking planner inherits TSMC guarantees—is not supported by the implemented weight update, and the headline claim of 'significant' improvement is not backed by statistical evidence. The empirical framework is promising, but the paper currently overstates both its theoretical foundation and the confidence of its empirical conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Materials / Slow-thinking Module / Theoretical Justification; Algorithm 2] Equation (1) defines the TSMC weight as ωτ = (p0/q)(ψτ/ψτ−1), but the implementation replaces this with ω = exp(λδ) where δ ∈ {0,1} and explicitly drops the p0/q ratio because LLM log-probabilities are 'often unreliable.' The text then asserts that TSMC convergence properties guarantee that particles are guided toward successful trajectories. This does not follow: without the importance ratio, resampling is not targeting the posterior over successful trajectories, only a proposal distribution tilted by exp(λδ). Moreover, Algorithm 2 line 8 sets ω_i^τ ← exp(λ δ_i^τ) from scratch at each step, whereas the text describes the cumulative update ω_{τ+1} ← ω_τ exp(λδ_{τ+1}). The implemented procedure is therefore not even sequential importance sampling with resampling. The claimed theoretical foundation is load-bearing for the novelty claim that this is a TSMC-style uncertainty-aware planner; e
  2. [Experiments / Overall Evaluation, Table 1] The paper states that NeSyFS 'consistently and significantly outperforms all baseline methods,' but every reported result is an average of only three random seeds, with no error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests. This applies to Tables 1–3 and Figures 5 and 7. Without variance information, the reader cannot assess whether the large-looking margins (e.g., GPT-5-mini ALFWorld 91.1 vs. SwiftSage 76.7) are stable across seeds or within noise. Please report per-seed results and either error bars plus a significance test or explicitly temper the 'significantly outperforms' claim.
  3. [Experiments / Comparison with Tree-search Planning Method, Table 4] In Table 4, the tree-search baseline achieves a higher success rate in every row (0.96 vs. 0.92 and 0.67 vs. 0.64 for GPT-5; 0.93 vs. 0.90 and 0.58 vs. 0.53 for GPT-5-mini), while NeSyFS consumes fewer tokens. The text concludes that NeSyFS 'achieves a more favorable trade-off,' but no trade-off metric is defined and no variance is reported. If the success-rate differences are within seed noise, the trade-off claim is unsupported. Please report a defined cost-effectiveness measure (e.g., SR per million tokens) with error bars, or soften the comparison to 'comparable success rate at lower token cost.'
  4. [Slow Thinking Module / Weight Update and Resampling] The paper claims that the resampling mechanism 'can make our approach more robust to LLM's mistakes,' but with N=6 and binary weights (each particle weight is either 1 or e^λ), a single incorrect δ can dominate or starve the particle set. Even if the TSMC theory were applicable, the binary, non-cumulative weights would amplify the effect of detector noise. The task-progress detector accuracy in Table 3 is evaluated offline, but there is no experiment that varies detector noise or demonstrates robustness of the overall planner to misclassification. Please add such an analysis or temper the robustness claim to what the empirical comparison actually supports.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Methodology, throughout] Several cross-references are unresolved, e.g., 'in the forms in Section .' and 'details of R are introduced in Appendix .' These placeholders should be filled before publication.
  2. [Algorithm 2, lines 10–14] The resampling notation is confusing: new particles are defined by assignment and then overwritten in the sampling loop. Clarify that resampling is with replacement and indicate whether the weights are normalized.
  3. [Experiments, Table 1] The column header 'AverageSR AR' is ambiguous. Separate into 'Average SR' and 'Average AR' with clear definitions.
  4. [Experiments, Figures 5 and 7] The plots lack error bars and do not clearly identify the number of tasks or seeds per point. Adding error bars would make the comparisons interpretable.
  5. [Experiments / Comparison with Tree-search Planning Method] This section sets the maximum number of reflections to K=1, while the main experiments use K=3. Clarify whether this changes the behavior of NeSyFS beyond the planning module and whether it affects comparability with the main results.
  6. [References] Several references have future dates (2026) or appear to be preprints with unusual numbering. Please verify all bibliographic entries are complete and correctly cited.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the empirical evaluation is external and the TSMC-label caveat is a support gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

NeSyFS is evaluated against external benchmarks (ALFWorld, WebShop, ScienceWorld) and baseline agents that do not share its fitted values; the reported gains are not derived from the method's own assumptions. The KG update, reflection, and planning components are stated as algorithms/prompts, not as fitted parameters, and the experimental claims are not obtained by construction from the training data. The closest issue is the Supplementary 'Theoretical Justification': Eq. (1) is the correct TSMC weight, but Algorithm 2 replaces it with exp(λδ) and explicitly omits p0/q because LLM log-probabilities 'are often unreliable.' The paper then asserts TSMC convergence guarantees. That is an unsupported transfer of a theorem to a simplified heuristic, and there is an internal inconsistency between the cumulative update described in prose (ω_{τ+1}←ω_τ exp(λδ_{τ+1})) and the non-cumulative reset in Algorithm 2 line 8 (ω_i^τ ← exp(λδ_i^τ)). However, this is a validity/correctness gap, not circularity: the algorithm's outputs are not assumed in its inputs, no parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction, and the empirical benchmark comparisons remain self-contained. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework's central claims rest on several hand-set hyperparameters (K, N, L, lambda, reflection threshold) and on the assumption that LLM-based triplet parsing and progress detection faithfully approximate the TSMC target. None of these are derived; they are selected for the experiments. The overclaim that TSMC guarantees apply to the simplified weight update is the main unstated assumption.

free parameters (5)
  • K (reflection failure threshold) = 3
    Number of consecutive reflection failures before slow thinking is triggered. Set to 3 in all experiments (Algorithm 1 and 'In every experiment, if not stated specifically, K is selected to be 3').
  • N (number of particles) = 6
    Number of particles in TSMC-plan. Set to 6 in all experiments (Algorithm 2 description).
  • L (planning horizon) = 5
    Planning horizon in the slow-thinking module. Set to 5 in experiments; the authors note L cannot be too large because observation prediction errors accumulate.
  • lambda (temperature in weight update) = 1
    Scaling factor in exp(lambda * delta). The text says 'The temperature parameter lambda is selected to 1.'
  • reflection self-consistency threshold = 80% with n=5
    The reflection answer is 'Yes' only when 80% of 5 LLM samples are 'Yes'. Introduced in the Reflection Module section.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The LLM's binary progress judgment delta reliably indicates whether a state transition moves toward task completion.
    The entire weight update and resampling in TSMC-plan rests on this. The paper evaluates this detector in Table 3 but on manually labeled trajectories, without inter-annotator agreement or a detailed labeling protocol.
  • ad hoc to paper Omitting the importance ratio p0/q in Eq. (1) does not invalidate the convergence properties used to claim particle guidance toward successful trajectories.
    The Theoretical Justification replaces Eq. (1) with exp(lambda*delta) and asserts the TSMC guarantee still applies. This is not a standard TSMC update, so the guarantee is assumed rather than derived.
  • domain assumption LLM-based KG update and retrieval accurately represent the underlying latent state of the environment.
    All modules consume KG-retrieved triplets as state context; if triplet extraction or pruning is unreliable, the belief state is corrupted. The paper provides no quantitative evaluation of KG accuracy.
  • ad hoc to paper The target distribution sigma is well-approximated by trajectories that receive binary progress judgments.
    The target is defined as task-completing trajectories, but the algorithm never computes sigma; it uses delta as a proxy. The relationship between delta and sigma is asserted, not shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NeSyFS: A Neuro-symbolic Fast-Slow Thinking Framework for LLM Agent under Partial Observability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3L2GJGM6

@misc{pith2026260728942,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NeSyFS: A Neuro-symbolic Fast-Slow Thinking Framework for LLM Agent under Partial Observability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3L2GJGM6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28942}
}
read the original abstract

Recently Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in applications such as self-reflection, retrieval-augmented generation, and scientific discovery. In these settings, agents must act based on limited observations rather than full environmental states, leading to partial observability. This introduces several key challenges: belief state inference, task objective misalignment, and planning under uncertainty. Prior approaches typically condition actions on full or summarized action-observation histories whose redundant and irrelevant information can mislead the decision making of LLM agent. Inspired by human cognition, we propose a novel neuro-symbolic fast-slow thinking (NeSyFS) framework for LLM agent, addressing the challenges introduced by partial observability in a unified approach. We use a knowledge graph (KG) to represent the belief state, providing triplets as context for every module of NeSyFS. The fast-thinking module performs reactive action, while slow-thinking conducts a new uncertainty-aware planning by following the high-level structure of twisted sequential Monte Carlo (TSMC) algorithm. To mitigate the misalignment of task objective, a reflection module is used to reflect fast-thinking actions, and also switches to the slow-thinking module whenever reactive actions repeatedly fail. Experiments on three representative benchmarks, i.e. ALFWorld, Webshop, and ScienceWorld, demonstrate significant advantages over previous methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28942 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of previous and NeSyFS agent. Previous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagram of decision making in fast-thinking module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram of NeSyFS framework. Knowledge graph (KG), representing the latent state of environment, is updated by fast￾thinking module with new observation and retrieved by all the modules. Every reactive action is reflected. If "No", fast-thinking is called again with thought from reflection module. If "No" repeatedly for K number of times, the slow-thinking module is initiated to search optimal action via planning, w… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagram of the proposed TSMC-style uncertainty-aware planning algorithm, where three particles are updated in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance comparison of different reflection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Diagram of updating KG with new observation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance Comparison of fast-slow thinking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education

    Clancey, William J. Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education. Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-83)

  2. [2]

    Classification Problem Solving

    Clancey, William J. Classification Problem Solving. Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence

  3. [3]

    , title =

    Robinson, Arthur L. , title =. 1980 , doi =. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/208/4447/1019.full.pdf , journal =

    1980

  4. [4]

    New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry

    Robinson, Arthur L. New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry. Science

  5. [5]

    Clancey and Glenn Rennels , abstract =

    Diane Warner Hasling and William J. Clancey and Glenn Rennels , abstract =. Strategic explanations for a diagnostic consultation system , journal =. 1984 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(84)80003-6 , url =

    doi:10.1016/s0020-7373(84)80003-6 1984

  6. [6]

    and Rennels, Glenn R

    Hasling, Diane Warner and Clancey, William J. and Rennels, Glenn R. and Test, Thomas. Strategic Explanations in Consultation---Duplicate. The International Journal of Man-Machine Studies

  7. [7]

    Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

    Rice, James. Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

  8. [8]

    Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

    Clancey, William J. Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    The Engineering of Qualitative Models

    Clancey, William J. The Engineering of Qualitative Models

  2. [10]

    2023 , eprint=

    Attention Is All You Need , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  3. [11]

    Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

    NASA. Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

  4. [12]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  5. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 , year=

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 , year=

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09970 , year=

    Pre-act: Multi-step planning and reasoning improves acting in llm agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09970 , year=

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06682 , year=

    Self-reflection in llm agents: Effects on problem-solving performance , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06682 , year=

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02479 , year=

    From llms to llm-based agents for software engineering: A survey of current, challenges and future , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02479 , year=

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08066 , year=

    The ai scientist-v2: Workshop-level automated scientific discovery via agentic tree search , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08066 , year=

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03768 , year=

    Alfworld: Aligning text and embodied environments for interactive learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03768 , year=

    2010 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Webshop: Towards scalable real-world web interaction with grounded language agents , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  12. [20]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Agentboard: An analytical evaluation board of multi-turn llm agents , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  13. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04151 , year=

    Agentgym: Evolving large language model-based agents across diverse environments , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04151 , year=

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    The eleventh international conference on learning representations , year=

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models , author=. The eleventh international conference on learning representations , year=

  15. [23]

    NeurIPS Workshop on Bridging Language, Agent, and World Models for Reasoning and Planning , year=

    Evaluating Long-Context Reasoning in LLM-Based WebAgents , author=. NeurIPS Workshop on Bridging Language, Agent, and World Models for Reasoning and Planning , year=

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.00615 , year=

    Acon: Optimizing context compression for long-horizon llm agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.00615 , year=

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    2025 , publisher=

    Large Language Model Agents: A Comprehensive Survey on Architectures, Capabilities, and Applications , author=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  18. [26]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  19. [27]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

  20. [28]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Reinforcement learning using approximate belief states , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  21. [29]

    , author=

    Multi-task Reinforcement Learning in Partially Observable Stochastic Environments. , author=. Journal of Machine Learning Research , volume=

  22. [30]

    Journal of artificial intelligence research , volume=

    Finding approximate POMDP solutions through belief compression , author=. Journal of artificial intelligence research , volume=

  23. [31]

    Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction , volume=

    Recent advances in deep reinforcement learning applications for solving partially observable markov decision processes (pomdp) problems: Part 1—fundamentals and applications in games, robotics and natural language processing , author=. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction...

    2021

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07327 , year=

    IterResearch: Rethinking Long-Horizon Agents with Interaction Scaling , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07327 , year=

  25. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06727 , year=

    Scaling llm multi-turn rl with end-to-end summarization-based context management , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06727 , year=

  26. [34]

    NeurIPS Workshop on Bridging Language, Agent, and World Models for Reasoning and Planning , year=

    ABBEL: LLM Agents Acting through Belief Bottlenecks Expressed in Language , author=. NeurIPS Workshop on Bridging Language, Agent, and World Models for Reasoning and Planning , year=

  27. [35]

    The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    SeCom: On Memory Construction and Retrieval for Personalized Conversational Agents , author=. The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.16789 , year=

    Toolllm: Facilitating large language models to master 16000+ real-world apis , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.16789 , year=

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15506 , year=

    Agentohana: Design unified data and training pipeline for effective agent learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15506 , year=

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Trial and error: Exploration-based trajectory optimization of LLM agents , author=. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  31. [39]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 , pages=

    Atlas: Agent tuning via learning critical steps , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 , pages=

    2025

  32. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10978 , year=

    Group-in-group policy optimization for llm agent training , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10978 , year=

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages=

    L3M+ P: Lifelong Planning with Large Language Models , author=. 2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages=. 2025 , organization=

    2025

  34. [42]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    From Words to Actions: Unveiling the Theoretical Underpinnings of LLM-Driven Autonomous Systems , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2024 , organization=

    2024

  35. [43]

    Transactions on Machine Learning Research , year=

    The Landscape of Agentic Reinforcement Learning for LLMs: A Survey , author=. Transactions on Machine Learning Research , year=

  36. [44]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=

    Sequential monte carlo samplers , author=. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  37. [45]

    Biometrika , volume=

    A sequential particle filter method for static models , author=. Biometrika , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  38. [46]

    International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics , pages=

    Smcp3: Sequential monte carlo with probabilistic program proposals , author=. International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  39. [47]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.04387 , year=

    Data-driven sequential Monte Carlo in probabilistic programming , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.04387 , year=

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Sequential Monte Carlo methods in practice , pages=

    An introduction to sequential Monte Carlo methods , author=. Sequential Monte Carlo methods in practice , pages=. 2001 , publisher=

    2001

  41. [49]

    2020 , publisher=

    An introduction to sequential Monte Carlo , author=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  42. [50]

    , author=

    Towards a definition of knowledge graphs. , author=. SEMANTiCS (Posters, Demos, SuCCESS) , volume=

  43. [51]

    Proceedings of the 2018 international conference on management of data , pages=

    Cypher: An evolving query language for property graphs , author=. Proceedings of the 2018 international conference on management of data , pages=

    2018

  44. [52]

    Big Data and Cognitive Computing , volume=

    Llm fine-tuning: Concepts, opportunities, and challenges , author=. Big Data and Cognitive Computing , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  45. [53]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  46. [54]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    Probabilistic Inference in Language Models via Twisted Sequential Monte Carlo , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2024 , organization=

    2024

  47. [55]

    The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Step-by-Step Reasoning for Math Problems via Twisted Sequential Monte Carlo , author=. The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  48. [56]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  49. [57]

    ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology , year=

    Evaluating llm-based agents for multi-turn conversations: A survey , author=. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology , year=

  50. [58]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09858 , year=

    Reasoning models can be effective without thinking , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09858 , year=

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    Preemptive detection and correction of misaligned actions in llm agents , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    2025

  52. [60]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13966 , year=

    On the brittle foundations of react prompting for agentic large language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13966 , year=

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    Reflact: World-grounded decision making in llm agents via goal-state reflection , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    2025

  54. [62]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08049 , year=

    A survey of process reward models: From outcome signals to process supervisions for large language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08049 , year=

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoning , author=. The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  56. [64]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  57. [65]

    Proceedings of the 61st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: long papers) , pages=

    Plan-and-solve prompting: Improving zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning by large language models , author=. Proceedings of the 61st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: long papers) , pages=

  58. [66]

    Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    Scienceworld: Is your agent smarter than a 5th grader? , author=. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    2022

  59. [67]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267 , year=

    Openai gpt-5 system card , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267 , year=

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Proceedings of the First Workshop on Neural Machine Translation , pages=

    Beam search strategies for neural machine translation , author=. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Neural Machine Translation , pages=

  61. [69]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Probabilistic planning with sequential monte carlo methods , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  62. [70]

    The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , year=

    Spo: Sequential monte carlo policy optimisation , author=. The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , year=

  63. [71]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Sequential Monte Carlo for policy optimization in continuous POMDPs , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  64. [72]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17382 , year=

    Reason for future, act for now: A principled framework for autonomous llm agents with provable sample efficiency , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17382 , year=

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Swiftsage: A generative agent with fast and slow thinking for complex interactive tasks , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  66. [74]

    Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages=

    AriGraph: learning knowledge graph world models with episodic memory for LLM agents , author=. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages=

  67. [75]

    Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    When is tree search useful for llm planning? it depends on the discriminator , author=. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  68. [76]

    The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Tooltree: Efficient LLM tool planning via dual-feedback monte carlo tree search and bidirectional pruning , author=. The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  69. [77]

    gradient descent

    Automatic prompt optimization with “gradient descent” and beam search , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages=

    2023

  70. [78]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171 , year=

    Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171 , year=

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    2011 , publisher=

    Thinking, fast and slow , author=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  72. [80]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , year=

    The llama 3 herd of models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , year=

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.