Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

A decentralized ledger, beacon-based task allocation, and weighted chain-of-thought voting let lightweight LLMs on consumer GPUs outperform centralized multi-agent orchestration on reasoning benchmarks.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Symphony's decentralized multi-agent LLM framework claims strong accuracy gains but its evaluation has internal contradictions and missing statistical support.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The framework idea is sensible, but the paper's own numbers contradict its headline claims; it needs a careful rewrite before anyone can use the results. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.20019 v1 pith:AL7NS336 submitted 2025-08-27 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CLcs.MA

Symphony: A Decentralized Multi-Agent Framework for Scalable Collective Intelligence

Ji Wang , Kashing Chen , Xinyuan Song , Ke Zhang , Lynn Ai , Eric Yang , Bill Shi This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.AIcs.CLcs.MA
keywords decentralized multi-agent systemsLLM agentschain-of-thought votingbeacon-based selectioncapability ledgeredge deploymentcollective intelligencereasoning benchmarks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Most LLM agent frameworks route everything through a central orchestrator, which makes them costly and fragile. Symphony claims the opposite architecture can work better: a set of lightweight LLMs running on ordinary consumer GPUs coordinates through a shared ledger of agent capabilities, a beacon-based protocol that assigns each subtask to the best-matching agent, and a weighted vote over multiple chain-of-thought reasoning paths. On the Big-Bench-Hard benchmark the paper reports absolute accuracy gains of 6.5–41.6 percentage points over direct single-agent solving and 6.5–29.1 points over the AutoGen baseline, and on AMC competition math problems it reports gains over every baseline. The same design narrows the performance gap between weak and strong models, suggesting that orchestration, not raw model size, is doing much of the work. If these results hold, decentralized multi-agent coordination becomes a practical, low-cost alternative to centralized LLM pipelines.

Core claim

On its own terms, Symphony's discovery is that decentralized orchestration outperforms centralized orchestration for LLM-based reasoning. The system decomposes each query into multiple independent chains-of-thought, broadcasts each subtask as a beacon, scores every available agent's capability vector against the subtask requirement with cosine similarity, assigns the subtask to the highest-scoring agent, and finally aggregates the completed chains by weighted majority vote using averaged match scores as confidence. The paper reports that this pipeline beats direct solving and centralized frameworks on both benchmarks, with larger absolute gains on harder tasks and weaker models, and that bot

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the match-score equation (Eq. 1), where s_j = similarity(c_j, r) computes a cosine similarity between an agent's capability vector and a subtask's requirement. This score chooses which agent executes each subtask (Beacon selection) and supplies the confidence weight in the final vote (Eq. 2). Around it sit the decentralized ledger that records capability and availability, the beacon broadcast that announces subtask requirements, and the weighted majority vote over diverse chains-of-thought. These pieces are what convert a swarm of independent lightweight LLMs into a coordinated reasoner; if the match score were replaced by random allocation, the paper's ablation

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the cosine similarity between an agent's capability vector and a subtask's requirement predicts which agent will execute that subtask best; the paper does not say how capability vectors are built or validated.

What would settle it

Register several agents with identical models and randomized capability vectors on otherwise identical hardware, then compare beacon score-based selection against random selection on the same subtasks. If the accuracy gap disappears, the selection mechanism's reported gains depend on the capability vectors carrying real skill information; if an oracle that picks agents by past per-subtask accuracy clearly beats score selection, the vectors are not tracking true ability.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • On Big-Bench-Hard, using Symphony instead of direct solving gives 6.5–41.6 percentage-point absolute accuracy gains, and using it instead of the AutoGen baseline gives 6.5–29.1 point gains.
  • On the AMC math set, Symphony outperforms all tested baselines, exceeding AutoGen by up to 4.46 points and direct solving by up to 7.41 points.
  • The gap between weak and strong models shrinks: while direct solving spans roughly 36–73% on BBH across the three 7B-class models, Symphony spans 78–87%.
  • Multi-CoT voting adds 0.72–6.52 points and beacon score-based selection adds 0.60–4.35 points over single-CoT or random-allocation alternatives.
  • End-to-end orchestration overhead stays below 5% of inference latency, so the coordination mechanisms are cheap relative to model compute.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the capability match score is doing the work the ablations suggest, replacing cosine similarity with a learned predictor of per-subtask accuracy should push accuracy further; that extension is not in the paper.
  • The narrowing of the weak/strong model gap hints that ensemble-style decentralized coordination could be a low-cost way to lift small models, but only two reasoning benchmarks are tested, so generalizing to open-ended tasks remains an open question.
  • The ledger concept could support a genuine agent economy if capability records were updated from execution outcomes rather than treated as static; the paper's conclusion gestures at this but it is not implemented.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Symphony, a decentralized multi-agent framework for LLM-based reasoning. It replaces centralized orchestration with a decentralized ledger, a Beacon-based agent-selection protocol, and weighted majority voting over chain-of-thought (CoT) plans. Experiments on BBH and AMC compare Symphony against Direct Solving, AutoGen, and CrewAI using three 7B-scale models, and report that Symphony outperforms all baselines on both benchmarks. Additional ablations claim that both CoT voting and Beacon-based selection improve accuracy, and that the orchestration overhead is below 5% of inference latency. The paper also includes a system-component appendix, a case study, and prompt templates.

Significance. If the empirical results were reliable, the paper would make a useful contribution to decentralized multi-agent LLM orchestration on edge hardware, an area of growing practical interest. The proposed mechanisms are intuitive and the code link is a positive reproducibility signal. However, the current manuscript contains internal contradictions between the prose claims and its own tables, lacks statistical support for small accuracy differences, and leaves a load-bearing mechanism (the capability vectors in Eq. (1)) underspecified. As written, the paper's central claim that Symphony surpasses all baselines is not supported by the evidence presented, so the contribution is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 1] The text states that on AMC, "Symphony still surpasses all baselines, achieving up to 4.46% higher accuracy than AutoGen and up to 7.41% higher than Direct Solving." Table 1 reports for Mistral-7B-instruct-v0.3: Direct Solving = 6.02, AutoGen = 1.79, CrewAI = 2.40, Symphony = 3.61. Direct Solving is 2.41 points higher than Symphony, so the claim is false for this configuration. In the same paragraph, the BBH gains are quoted as "6.5% to 41.6%" vs Direct Solving and "6.5% to 29.1%" vs AutoGen, but the computed gains from Table 1 are 13.04 to 42.03 and 6.52 to 29.70, respectively. The lower bound is inconsistent with the table. These discrepancies mean the paper's headline empirical claim cannot be verified from its own evidence.
  2. [Section 3.4, Tables 2 and 3] The robustness paragraph reports ranges that do not match the tables. For multi-CoT voting, it states BBH gains of "+5.3% to +6.2%" while Table 2 gives +4.25, +6.52, and +5.07, i.e., a range of 4.25 to 6.52 percentage points. For Beacon selection, it states BBH gains of "+4.1% to +4.3%" while Table 3 gives +3.62, +4.35, and +3.62, i.e., 3.62 to 4.35. The AMC ranges are similarly misreported. Since these numbers are the entire support for the robustness claim, the prose cannot be reconciled with the experimental data.
  3. [Section 2.2, Eq. (1)] The capability match score is defined as a similarity function between an agent's capability vector c_j and a subtask requirement r(t_i,k). This score determines both which agent is selected to execute each subtask and the confidence weights in Eq. (2). The paper never specifies how c_j is constructed, what representation r uses, or whether these vectors are manually defined, learned, or derived from prompts. Without this operationalization, the mechanism is not reproducible, and the claimed gains from Beacon-based selection (Table 3) cannot be attributed to the described protocol. This is a load-bearing gap in the methodology.
  4. [Sections 3.3–3.5] All accuracy results are single-run point estimates with no error bars, multiple seeds, or significance tests. The BBH evaluation uses 23 tasks × 6 questions = 138 items, and AMC uses 83 items. Differences as small as 0.60 points (Table 3, AMC/Mistral) are within binomial sampling noise, so statements such as "consistently outperforms" and "robustness across models" are not statistically substantiated. Additionally, the orchestration-overhead claim in §3.5 ("less than 5% of the inference latency") is reported without any measurement methodology, a table, or a definition of which latency components are included; this claim is unverifiable as presented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains typographical errors: "Dpartment" (author affiliation), "Resent frameworks" (§1), "enableSymphony" (§2), "ledge registration" (§3.5), and "To reduce demonstrate" (§3.1). These should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.1 vs Appendix B.0.2] Section 3.1 says the main experiments registered three agents, while Appendix B.0.2 says three planning agents were chosen from all 8 agents. The total number of agents in the system should be stated consistently.
  3. [References] Reference [24] is the general BIG-bench paper, not the Big-Bench-Hard subset; reference [25] is the actual BBH paper, yet it is cited for AMC, which is a different benchmark (American Mathematics Competitions). The benchmark citations need to be corrected.
  4. [Conclusion] The conclusion mentions "self-play, sparse parameter sharing" as features of Symphony, but these concepts do not appear elsewhere in the methodology or experiments. Either substantiate them or remove the unsupported attributes.
  5. [Reproducibility] A repository URL is provided, but the submission does not include a code snapshot, configuration files, or exact prompts for the benchmark tasks. Providing a versioned artifact would improve reproducibility, especially given the underspecified capability vectors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: Symphony's empirical gains and ablations are not constructed from their own outputs; central claims rest on independent benchmark measurements.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: Symphony's accuracy on BBH/AMC compared with baselines, plus ablations isolating CoT voting and Beacon selection. None of these reported numbers are derived from the quantities they are used to validate. Eq. (1) defines a capability-match score used for agent selection and voting weights, but there is no indication that benchmark outcomes are fitted back into the capability vectors c_j or requirement vectors r(t_i,k); the score is a mechanism input, not a fitted residual or a renamed prediction. The only self-citation with overlapping authors, reference [20] (Hide-and-shill, prior Symphony work), is cited as an example of blockchain-related work in the Introduction and is not load-bearing for any claim in this paper. Two genuine weaknesses—the Section 3.2 prose claiming 'surpasses all baselines' while Table 1 shows Direct Solving beating Symphony on AMC/Mistral-7B, and the unoperationalized capability vectors—are correctness/reproducibility concerns, not circularity under the definitions used here: the predicted outcomes are not identical by construction to the inputs. No circular step meets the evidentiary bar requiring quotation, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters are reported; all listed values are design choices. The main hidden input is the unspecified capability vector c_j, which could in principle be tuned to the benchmarks, increasing circularity risk.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of CoTs M = 3
    Chosen by hand for main experiments; ablation shows improvements from 1 to 3 CoTs, but no tuning curve.
  • Similarity function = cosine similarity
    Eq. (1) uses cosine similarity as an example; no comparison of alternatives or justification.
  • Sampling temperature / nucleus p = 0.5 / 0.9
    Standard inference hyperparameters, but not varied or justified.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Weighted majority voting of independent CoTs improves answer accuracy
    Core to pipeline; assumed without theoretical or empirical proof outside the reported ablations.
  • domain assumption Capability match scores correlate with subtask execution quality
    Used in Eq. (1) and for voting weights; no validation of this correlation.
  • domain assumption The three-server setup adequately represents a decentralized edge deployment
    All agents run on servers owned by the authors (three physical machines), not on heterogeneous consumer devices.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symphony: A Decentralized Multi-Agent Framework for Scalable Collective Intelligence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AL7NS336

@misc{pith2026250820019,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symphony: A Decentralized Multi-Agent Framework for Scalable Collective Intelligence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AL7NS336}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20019}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Most existing Large Language Model (LLM)-based agent frameworks rely on centralized orchestration, incurring high deployment costs, rigid communication topologies, and limited adaptability. To address these challenges, we introduce Symphony, a decentralized multi-agent system which enables lightweight LLMs on consumer-grade GPUs to coordinate. Symphony introduces three key mechanisms: (1) a decentralized ledger that records capabilities, (2) a Beacon-selection protocol for dynamic task allocation, and (3) weighted result voting based on CoTs. This design forms a privacy-saving, scalable, and fault-tolerant orchestration with low overhead. Empirically, Symphony outperforms existing baselines on reasoning benchmarks, achieving substantial accuracy gains and demonstrating robustness across models of varying capacities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20019 by Bill Shi, Eric Yang, Ji Wang, Kashing Chen, Ke Zhang, Lynn Ai, Xinyuan Song.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of Symphony. 1. A query from user is decomposed into multiple sub-tasks by planning agents. 2. Sub-task execution leverages Beacon-based agent selection to choose appropriate agents. 3. Final response is generated through result voting across multiple reasoning paths. User Query The process begins when the user submits a task description to Symphony. This query is broadcast to multiple planning ag… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of the Symphony pipeline on a BBH case. Three independent planning agents generate different CoTs to enhance diversity of solutions. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

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

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

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

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

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

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

  3. An Uncertainty-Aware Resilience Micro-Agent for Causal Observability in the Computing Continuum

    cs.DC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    AURORA deploys parallel micro-agents using do-calculus and the free-energy principle to perform counterfactual root-cause analysis within Markov blankets, authorizing local repairs only when causal confidence is high ...

  4. An Uncertainty-Aware Resilience Micro-Agent for Causal Observability in the Computing Continuum

    cs.DC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    AURORA is a micro-agent framework using free-energy principle, causal do-calculus, and state-graphs for grey failure diagnosis in edge environments, reporting 0% destructive actions, 62% repair accuracy, and 3ms mean ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The 4th dimension for scaling model size

    Ruike Zhu, Hanwen Zhang, Tianyu Shi, Chi Wang, Tianyi Zhou, and Zengyi Qin. The 4th dimension for scaling model size. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18233, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Ccma: A framework for cascading cooperative multi-agent in autonomous driving merging using large language models

    Miao Zhang, Zhenlong Fang, Tianyi Wang, Shuai Lu, Xueqian Wang, and Tianyu Shi. Ccma: A framework for cascading cooperative multi-agent in autonomous driving merging using large language models. Expert Systems with Applications, page 127717, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Modeling collaborator: Enabling subjective vision classification with minimal human effort via llm tool-use

    Imad Eddine Toubal, Aditya Avinash, Neil Gordon Alldrin, Jan Dlabal, Wenlei Zhou, Enming Luo, Otilia Stretcu, Hao Xiong, Chun-Ta Lu, Howard Zhou, et al. Modeling collaborator: Enabling subjective vision classification with minimal human effort via llm tool-use. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 175...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Simulating classroom education with llm- empowered agents

    Zheyuan Zhang, Daniel Zhang-Li, Jifan Yu, Linlu Gong, Jinchang Zhou, Zhanxin Hao, Jianxiao Jiang, Jie Cao, Huiqin Liu, Zhiyuan Liu, et al. Simulating classroom education with llm- empowered agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19226, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Age-related bias and artificial intelligence: a scoping review

    Charlene H Chu, Simon Donato-Woodger, Shehroz S Khan, Rune Nyrup, Kathleen Leslie, Alexandra Lyn, Tianyu Shi, Andria Bianchi, Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi, and Amanda Grenier. Age-related bias and artificial intelligence: a scoping review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1):1–17, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Wcdt: World-centric diffusion transformer for traffic scene generation

    Chen Yang, Yangfan He, Aaron Xuxiang Tian, Dong Chen, Jianhui Wang, Tianyu Shi, Arsalan Heydarian, and Pei Liu. Wcdt: World-centric diffusion transformer for traffic scene generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02082, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Grundy, and Haoyu Wang

    Xinying Hou, Yanjie Zhao, Yue Liu, Zhou Yang, Kailong Wang, Li Li, Xiapu Luo, David Lo, John C. Grundy, and Haoyu Wang. Large language models for software engineering: A systematic literature review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10620, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Sample- efficient antibody design through protein language model for risk-aware batch bayesian opti- mization

    Yanzheng Wang, Boyue Wang, Tianyu Shi, Jie Fu, Yi Zhou, and Zhizhuo Zhang. Sample- efficient antibody design through protein language model for risk-aware batch bayesian opti- mization. bioRxiv, pages 2023–11, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [10]

    Metagpt: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework, 2023

    Sirui Hong, Mingchen Zhuge, Jiaqi Chen, Xiawu Zheng, Yuheng Cheng, Ceyao Zhang, Jinlin Wang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, Chenyu Ran, Lingfeng Xiao, Chenglin Wu, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Metagpt: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework, 2023. https://github.com/geekan/MetaGPT

    work page 2023

  10. [11]

    Camel: Communicative agents for "mind" exploration of large language model society

    Guohao Li, Hasan Abed Al Kader Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Bernard Ghanem. Camel: Communicative agents for "mind" exploration of large language model society. In NeurIPS, 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [12]

    Wang et al

    J. Wang et al. V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [13]

    Crewai: Multi-agent orchestration framework

    CrewAI Contributors. Crewai: Multi-agent orchestration framework. https://github.com/ joaomdmoura/crewai, 2024. Accessed: 2025-08-16

    work page 2024

  13. [14]

    R. M. Aratchige and W. M. K. S. Ilmini. Llms working in harmony: A survey on the technologi- cal aspects of building effective llm-based multi agent systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.01963, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [15]

    Autogpt: The autonomous gpt-4 experiment

    Significant Gravitas Torantine. Autogpt: The autonomous gpt-4 experiment. GitHub repository,

    work page

  15. [16]

    Taylor, and Peter Stone

    Sanmit Narvekar, Bei Peng, Matteo Leonetti, Jivko Sinapov, Matthew E. Taylor, and Peter Stone. Curriculum learning for reinforcement learning domains: A framework and survey. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(181):1–50, 2020. 5

    work page 2020

  16. [17]

    Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang

    Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V . Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [18]

    Dimakis, Soummya Kar, José M

    Alexandros G. Dimakis, Soummya Kar, José M. F. Moura, Michael G. Rabbat, and Anna Scaglione. Gossip algorithms for distributed signal processing. Proceedings of the IEEE, 98 (11):1847–1864, 2010. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2010.2052531

    work page arXiv 2010

  18. [19]

    Gossip algorithm for multi-agent systems via random walk

    Gabriele Oliva, Stefano Panzieri, Roberto Setola, and Andrea Gasparri. Gossip algorithm for multi-agent systems via random walk. Systems & Control Letters, 128:34–40, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.sysconle.2019.04.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.sysconle.2019.04.008 2019

  19. [20]

    Hide-and-Shill: A Reinforcement Learning Framework for Market Manipulation Detection in Symphony-a Decentralized Multi-Agent System

    Ronghua Shi, Yiou Liu, Xinyu Ying, Yang Tan, Yuchun Feng, Lynn Ai, Bill Shi, Xuhui Wang, and Zhuang Liu. Hide-and-shill: A reinforcement learning framework for market manipulation detection in symphony-a decentralized multi-agent system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09179, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [21]

    Lightweight fault detection for distributed systems using periodic beaconing

    First Author and Second Author. Lightweight fault detection for distributed systems using periodic beaconing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 200X

    work page

  21. [22]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 35, pages 24824–24837, 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [23]

    Mistral-7b-instruct-v0.3

    Mistral AI. Mistral-7b-instruct-v0.3. Instruction-fine-tuned version of Mistral-7B-v0.3, 2023. See model card on Hugging Face

    work page 2023

  23. [24]

    Beyond the imitation game: Quanti- fying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models

    Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, et al. Beyond the imitation game: Quanti- fying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [25]

    Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them

    Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, et al. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [26]

    Autogen: Enabling next -gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Shaokun Zhang, Erkang Zhu, Beibin Li, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, and Chi Wang. Autogen: Enabling next -gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155, Aug 2023. v2 updated October 3, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [27]

    Congress

    U.S. Congress. Health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 (hipaa). https: //www.hhs.gov/hipaa/, 1996. Public Law 104-191, U.S. Statutes at Large

    work page 1996

  27. [28]

    Consider two positive even integers less than $15$ (not necessarily distinct)

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. General data protection regulation (gdpr). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj, 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679. A System Component Decentralized Ledger A decentralized ledger stores each agent’s resource ownership, contribution records, and domain expertise, indexed by a DID-compliant crypto...

    work page 2016

  28. [2023]

    Accessed: 2025-08-11

    work page 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.