Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

ReviewInstruct: A Review-Driven Multi-Turn Conversations Generation Method for Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Ask-Respond-Review loop turns a single instruction into a harder multi-turn dialogue, lifting a 13B model to 7.20 on MT-Bench and 29.65% on MMLU-Pro.

desk verdict A solid, moderately novel synthetic-data pipeline with a real ablative result, but the causal claim about the review mechanism is under-supported and the statistics are sloppier than they should be. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11010 v2 pith:AP2IQGES submitted 2025-05-16 cs.CL cs.AI

Jiangxu Wu , Cong Wang , TianHuang Su , Jun Yang , Haozhi Lin , Chao Zhang , Ming Peng , Kai Shi
show 5 more authors
SongPan Yang BinQing Pan ZiXian Li Ni Yang ZhenYu Yang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords multi-turndialoguegenerationsyntheticinstructiondatareview-drivenfeedbacksupervisedfine-tuningmulti-agentLLMframeworkdifficultydiversityMT-Bench
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

Review-Instruct proposes that the bottleneck in multi-turn dialogue training data is not the asking or the answering, but the absence of critical feedback: conversations should be produced by an Ask-Respond-Review loop in which reviewers critique each answer and a chairman converts the critique into a harder follow-up. Applied to the Alpaca instruction set, this loop creates two-turn dialogues that, when used to fine-tune a 13-billion-parameter Llama model, score 7.20 on MT-Bench and 29.65% on MMLU-Pro, above earlier 13B models trained with UltraChat, Vicuna, WizardLM, and Parrot data. The paper argues that the Review stage is the active ingredient: removing it drops both scores, while using multiple reviewers instead of one raises measured instruction diversity and difficulty. The method matters because it converts any existing single-turn instruction dataset into multi-turn training data without human annotation or new data collection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the named Ask-Respond-Review loop: a chairman selects or evolves an instruction; a candidate answers it; several reviewers independently criticize the answer on usefulness, relevance, accuracy, depth, and creativity; and the chairman synthesizes the criticism into the next instruction, choosing breadth evolution when feedback is positive and depth evolution when it is negative. The loop's work is to turn an existing single-turn instruction set into a two-turn dialogue whose second question is more demanding than the first, with no filtering or post-processing applied.

What would settle it

Train the same 13B model on Ask-Respond dialogues whose follow-up questions are produced from randomly shuffled or deliberately incorrect reviewer comments while holding everything else fixed; if MT-Bench and MMLU-Pro scores stay at 7.20 and 29.65%, then accurate reviewer criticism is not what drives the gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper establishes that adding a review stage to synthetic dialogue generation—where several reviewer agents independently critique the candidate's answer and a chairman agent turns that critique into the next question—produces multi-turn instruction data that lets a 13-billion-parameter language model score 7.20 overall on MT-Bench (7.15 on the second turn) and 29.65% on MMLU-Pro. The review stage specifically raises the proportion of hard instructions by 33.4% and instruction diversity by 18.6% relative to an Ask-Respond-only pipeline; multiple reviewers add a further 19.6% difficulty and 7.5% diversity over a single reviewer. Ablations show that the same data collapsed into single-turn conversations, or generated without the Review stage, performs markedly worse on both benchmarks, so the multi-turn, review-driven format is what carries the gain.

Load-bearing premise

The feedback loop rests on the assumption that the three reviewer models give accurate, substantive critiques, so the Chairman's follow-up questions are genuinely harder; the paper itself concedes in its limitations that weak reviewers can make reviews 'superficial, unhelpful, or even misleading'.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any single-turn instruction dataset can be piped through Ask-Respond-Review to generate multi-turn supervised fine-tuning data; the paper explicitly names Self-Instruct, Evol-Instruct, Magpie, and Persona-Hub as compatible upstream generators.
  • The data advantage shows up most on second-turn conversational quality: the full model scores 7.15 on the second turn of MT-Bench while the single-turn ablation scores 5.91, a larger gap than on the first turn.
  • Increasing reviewer count is a tunable synthesis knob: multi-reviewer data outperforms single-reviewer data on both benchmarks, with the larger gap on MMLU-Pro suggesting more reviewers mainly unlock knowledge-intensive reasoning.
  • In Auto-Arena pairwise battles judged by GPT-4o, the trained 13B model wins the large majority of matches against WizardLM, LLaMA2-Chat, Vicuna, and UltraLM, showing the effect transfers beyond fixed benchmark prompts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A behavioral difficulty test would sharpen the paper's central claim: if humans or a strong model answer the second-turn questions directly, their error rates should rise relative to first-turn questions, since the paper measures difficulty only with an LLM-assigned label.
  • Because the same loop can start from a single image rather than a text instruction (the appendix sketches this), the mechanism is not inherently text-bound; testing it on visual question chains would show whether the review-driven gain survives a modality change.
  • Mixing reviewer models with different biases, or discarding low-agreement critiques, could amplify the reported 33.4% difficulty gain; the paper does not test such panel-design variants.
  • Since no filtering or post-processing is applied, low-quality seed instructions may drag generated dialogues down; a post-hoc filter that drops dialogues where reviewers find no substantive flaw is an obvious extension the paper leaves untested.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Review-Instruct, a framework that converts single-turn instruction data (Alpaca) into multi-turn supervised fine-tuning (SFT) conversations via an iterative Ask-Respond-Review loop with three agent roles: a Candidate, multiple Reviewers, and a Chairman. The proposed pipeline is used to generate 52k conversations, which are then used to fine-tune LLaMA2-13B. The authors report state-of-the-art results among LLaMA2-13B-based models, with MT-Bench 7.20 and MMLU-Pro 29.65%, and attribute the gains primarily to the Review stage, which they claim increases instruction diversity and difficulty. Ablations compare against single-turn, no-Review, and single-reviewer variants.

Significance. If the claims hold, Review-Instruct is a practical and simple method to augment existing instruction datasets with multi-turn dialogue data, requiring no human annotation and no additional trainable parameters. The pipeline is grounded in well-known components (Evol-Instruct-style breadth/depth evolution, LLM-as-a-judge evaluation), and the paper includes several strengths: the method is described with pseudo-code, the code is promised to be released, the evaluation uses external benchmarks (MT-Bench, MMLU-Pro, Auto-Arena) so the improvement claim is not circular, and the ablations are well motivated. However, the evidence for the central causal claim (that Reviewer feedback is what drives the improvement) is currently indirect, and the reported numerical gains are not supported by statistical analysis or by re-evaluated baselines. The work is significant for practitioners but requires additional validation to fully support its conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction (absolute-gain claims)] The abstract and introduction state "absolute gains of 2.9% on MMLU-Pro and 2% on MT-Bench" relative to prior state-of-the-art LLaMA2-13B models. In Table 1, the MMLU-Pro comparison to WizardLM-13B is 29.65% vs 26.75%, which is a 2.9-percentage-point absolute difference and consistent. However, the MT-Bench comparison is 7.20 vs 7.06, a 0.14 absolute difference, which is about a 2.0% relative improvement, not an absolute gain. This inconsistency should be corrected in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion; as written, it misrepresents the magnitude of the MT-Bench improvement.
  2. [Table 1 and Section 3.2.1 (baseline comparability)] The main results compare Review-Instruct-13b against baseline numbers quoted from published papers rather than models re-evaluated under an identical protocol. MT-Bench scores are known to be sensitive to the judge model version, prompts, and sampling settings, and MMLU-Pro scores depend on the few-shot setup and answer extraction. Since the paper's central claim is state-of-the-art performance among LLaMA2-13B models, the baselines should be re-run in the same evaluation harness, or at least the exact evaluation settings for each baseline should be reported with variance. Without this, the claimed gains (especially the 0.14 MT-Bench difference) may not reflect true superiority.
  3. [Sections 4 and 8 (Review-stage mechanism not validated)] The causal claim that the Review stage improves SFT data quality because Reviewers identify genuine flaws and the Chairman converts them into harder follow-up questions is not directly validated. Section 8 explicitly concedes that reviews might be "superficial, unhelpful, or even misleading," yet the experiments provide no human audit of critique accuracy, no inter-reviewer agreement measure, and no check that the Chairman's follow-ups are harder in a task-relevant sense rather than merely longer or more specific. The difficulty labels in Figure 3 come from GPT-4o, an LLM proxy that can be sensitive to surface features, so the reported 33.4% difficulty increase does not necessarily reflect deeper reasoning demands. This missing validation is load-bearing because the Review vs. no-Review gap (MT-Bench 7.20 vs 6.52; MMLU-Pro 29.65% vs 22.9%) could alternatively be explained by a distribution shift toward more verbose or concrete instructions. The authors should add a human or gold-standard evaluation of review quality and of the task-relevant difficulty of the generated follow-ups.
  4. [Tables 1 and 3 (missing error bars and significance tests)] All benchmark numbers are reported as single points, except the main Review-Instruct-13b model for which the mean over five runs is given without variance. Differences such as 7.20 vs 7.13 (multi-review vs one-review) or 7.20 vs 6.52 (with vs without Review) could be within run-to-run noise. The paper should report per-run scores, standard deviations, and, where appropriate, significance tests for all models, especially for the ablations in Table 3, so that the claimed effects can be distinguished from random variation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1] The figure contains a typo: "Disscuss" should be "Discuss." The figure quality could also be improved for readability.
  2. [Section 2.1, Algorithm 1] The pseudo-code uses "data = queue()" and "d = queue()" but does not explain the queue semantics; these are effectively lists. Also "N = INPUT()" is undefined; the text should specify that N is the number of desired turns per conversation.
  3. [Section 3.1.1] The model name "Deepseek-2.5" is unclear; the reference list contains DeepSeek-V2, so the text should use the correct model name and citation.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Figure 3] The paragraph describing the blue/green/red bars is duplicated. Also, the claim of a 33.4% relative increase in "hard" instructions is not directly checkable from Figure 3; please specify which rounds were compared and whether the percentage is absolute or relative.
  5. [Table 7] The caption of Table 7 says "Breadth evolution case," but the example shows a depth evolution (adding error handling to a function). The caption should be corrected to "Depth evolution case."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central model-improvement claims are validated on external benchmarks, not on the pipeline's own generated data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that fine-tuning LLaMA2-13B on Review-Instruct-generated multi-turn conversations improves performance over prior LLaMA2-13B-based models. The supporting evidence is external: MT-Bench, MMLU-Pro, Auto-Arena, and manual pairwise evaluation. These benchmarks are not defined in terms of the Review-Instruct pipeline, and the model is not evaluated on its own training data or on reviewer-generated difficulty scores. The difficulty and diversity analyses use LLM-based annotators (GPT-4o for difficulty labels and Instagger for diversity labels), which is a methodological risk because the same kind of LLM is used in data generation and in measuring claimed data quality; however, this does not reduce the main result to its inputs, since the downstream model gain is measured on held-out external benchmarks. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the limitation that reviews could be 'superficial, unhelpful, or even misleading' (Section 8), which confirms that the mechanism is not assumed valid; it is an empirical assumption rather than a circular derivation. There are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no self-citation chains used to justify the core claim, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. The ablation comparing Review-Instruct to Review-Instruct-wo-Review is an honest controlled comparison, and even if the mechanism were imperfect, that would be a validity concern, not circularity. Under the stated criteria, no circular step can be exhibited with a specific reduction, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical ML paper with no mathematical derivation and no fitted physical constants. The load-bearing assumptions are domain assumptions about the reliability of LLM-based reviewers and judges, the adequacy of Alpaca as a seed set, and the validity of LLM-labeled difficulty and diversity metrics. Free parameters are limited to two hand-chosen design choices (conversation length N=2 and three reviewers); neither is subjected to sensitivity analysis. No invented physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of synthesized turns per conversation (N) = 2
    Algorithm 1 sets a fixed dialogue length N; the paper uses N=2 without sensitivity analysis, so all reported benchmark gains are specific to two-turn data.
  • Number of parallel reviewers = 3
    The multi-reviewer setting uses three reviewers; the ablation compares one versus three but does not test other counts, so the benefit of the exact count is not established.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption LLM-based judges provide valid evaluations of response quality.
    MT-Bench uses GPT-4, Auto-Arena uses GPT-4o, and manual evaluation is limited to 80 samples; the central benchmark claims rely on these judgments being reliable.
  • domain assumption Alpaca is a sufficient seed dataset for general-purpose multi-turn dialogue generation.
    All generated data starts from Alpaca; Section 8 admits that generalization beyond Alpaca is unclear.
  • domain assumption Reviewer critiques from Qwen2.5-32B, DeepSeek-2.5, and Llama-3.1-70B accurately identify flaws in candidate answers.
    The review stage is the core mechanism; Section 8 concedes reviews could be superficial or misleading.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o difficulty labels and InsTagger diversity labels are meaningful proxies for data quality.
    The headline dataset-analysis results (33.4% difficulty gain, 18.6% diversity gain) are computed from these labels.
  • domain assumption Qwen1.5-14B-Chat is comparable enough to GPT-3.5 to act as Chairman and Candidate without confounding results.
    The authors selected Qwen1.5-14B-Chat instead of ChatGPT for budget reasons, relying on Chatbot Arena comparability.
  • domain assumption The chosen training recipe does not interact with data quality.
    No sensitivity analysis is provided for the 3-epoch, learning rate 2e-5, batch-size-4-per-GPU setup used for all models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ReviewInstruct: A Review-Driven Multi-Turn Conversations Generation Method for Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AP2IQGES

@misc{pith2026250511010,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ReviewInstruct: A Review-Driven Multi-Turn Conversations Generation Method for Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AP2IQGES}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11010}
}
read the original abstract

The effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) in conversational AI is hindered by their reliance on single-turn supervised fine-tuning (SFT) data, which limits contextual coherence in multi-turn dialogues. Existing methods for generating multi-turn dialogue data struggle to ensure both diversity and quality in instructions. To address this, we propose Review-Instruct, a novel framework that synthesizes multi-turn conversations through an iterative "Ask-Respond-Review" process involving three agent roles: a Candidate, multiple Reviewers, and a Chairman. The framework iteratively refines instructions by incorporating Reviewer feedback, enhancing dialogue diversity and difficulty. We construct a multi-turn dataset using the Alpaca dataset and fine-tune the LLaMA2-13B model. Evaluations on MT-Bench, MMLU-Pro, and Auto-Arena demonstrate significant improvements, achieving absolute gains of 2.9\% on MMLU-Pro and 2\% on MT-Bench compared to prior state-of-the-art models based on LLaMA2-13B. Ablation studies confirm the critical role of the Review stage and the use of multiple Reviewers in boosting instruction diversity and difficulty. Our work highlights the potential of review-driven, multi-agent frameworks for generating high-quality conversational data at scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11010 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Review-Instruct Iteration Process: the chairman questions the candidate, the candidate answers, and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We conducted evaluations using Auto-Arena, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Instruction difficulty scores. Round 1 represents the original Alpaca data, serving as the foundation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diversity metric. The proportion of newly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The image for the multimodal case. The iterative Ask-Respond-Review process for generating synthetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P

    Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. https://lmsys.org/blog/2023-03-30-vicuna/ Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90\

    2023

  2. [2]

    Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica

    Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Tianle Li, Dacheng Li, Hao Zhang, Banghua Zhu, Michael Jordan, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.04132 Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human preference . Preprint, arXiv:2403.04132

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    DeepSeek-AI. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04434 Deepseek-v2: A strong, economical, and efficient mixture-of-experts language model . Preprint, arXiv:2405.04434

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Ning Ding, Yulin Chen, Bokai Xu, Yujia Qin, Zhi Zheng, Shengding Hu, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Bowen Zhou. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14233 Enhancing chat language models by scaling high-quality instructional conversations . arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14233

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Tao Ge, Xin Chan, Xiaoyang Wang, Dian Yu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.20094 Scaling synthetic data creation with 1,000,000,000 personas

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Xu Han and Zhengyan Zhang. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiopen.2021.08.002 Pre-trained models: Past, present and future. AI Open, 2:225--250

    doi:10.1016/j.aiopen.2021.08.002 2021

  7. [7]

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Chuyi Kong, Yaxin Fan, Xiang Wan, Feng Jiang, and Benyou Wang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.11534 Platolm: Teaching llms in multi-round dialogue via a user simulator . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7841--7863

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Ming Li, Yong Zhang, Zhitao Li, Jiuhai Chen, Lichang Chen, Ning Cheng, Jianzong Wang, Tianyi Zhou, and Jing Xiao. 2024 a . https://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-long.421 From quantity to quality: Boosting LLM performance with self-guided data selection for instruction tuning . I...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Xian Li, Ping Yu, Chunting Zhou, Timo Schick, Omer Levy, Luke Zettlemoyer, Jason E Weston, and Mike Lewis. 2024 b . https://openreview.net/forum?id=1oijHJBRsT Self-alignment with instruction backtranslation . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  3. [11]

    Chen Lichang, Li Shiyang, Yan Jun, Wang Hai, Gunaratna Kalpa, Yadav Vikas, Tang Zheng, Srinivasan Vijay, Zhou Tianyi, Huang Heng, and Jin Hongxia. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.08701 Alpagasus: Train a better alpaca with fewer data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08701

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Lin Long, Rui Wang, Ruixuan Xiao, Junbo Zhao, Xiao Ding, Gang Chen, and Haobo Wang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.658 On LLM s-driven synthetic data generation, curation, and evaluation: A survey . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguist...

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Keming Lu, Hongyi Yuan, Zheng Yuan, Runji Lin, Junyang Lin, Chuanqi Tan, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.07074 Instag: Instruction tagging for analyzing supervised fine-tuning of large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2308.07074

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Meta . 2024. https://ai.meta.com/blog/meta-llama-3-1/ Introducing llama 3.1: Our most capable models to date

    2024

  7. [15]

    OpenAI . 2022. Chatgpt: Optimizing language models for dialogue. https://chatgpt.r4wand.eu.org/

    2022

  8. [16]

    OpenAI . 2024. https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/ Hello gpt-4o

    2024

  9. [17]

    OpenAI and Josh Achiam and Steven Adler and Sandhini Agarwal and Lama Ahmad and Ilge Akkaya and Florencia Leoni Aleman et al . 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 Gpt-4 technical report

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and...

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Yuchong Sun, Che Liu, Kun Zhou, Jinwen Huang, Ruihua Song, Xin Zhao, Fuzheng Zhang, Di Zhang, and Kun Gai. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.525 Parrot: Enhancing multi-turn instruction following for large language models . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeti...

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Qwen Team. 2024. https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen1.5/ Introducing qwen1.5

    2024

  13. [21]

    Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi

    Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10560 Self-instruct: Aligning language model with self generated instructions

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, et al. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.01574 Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark . arXiv preprint ...

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, Qingwei Lin, and Daxin Jiang. 2024 a . https://openreview.net/forum?id=CfXh93NDgH Wizard LM : Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructions . In The Twelfth Interna...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Canwen Xu, Daya Guo, Nan Duan, and Julian McAuley. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.01196 Baize: An open-source chat model with parameter-efficient tuning on self-chat data . arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01196

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhangchen Xu, Fengqing Jiang, Luyao Niu, Yuntian Deng, Radha Poovendran, Yejin Choi, and Bill Yuchen Lin. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08464 Magpie: Alignment data synthesis from scratch by prompting aligned llms with nothing . arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08464

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, Le Yu, Me...

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Xu Yang, Yao Yongqiang, Huang Yufan, Qi Mengnan, Wang Maoquan, Gu Bin, and Sundaresan Neel. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11508 Rethinking the instruction quality: Lift is what you need . arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11508

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ruochen Zhao, Wenxuan Zhang, Yew Ken Chia, Weiwen Xu, Deli Zhao, and Lidong Bing. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20267 Auto-arena: Automating llm evaluations with agent peer battles and committee discussions . arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20267

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Hao Zhang

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Tianle Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Eric Xing, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Hao Zhang. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=BOfDKxfwt0 LMSYS -chat-1m: A large-scale real-world LLM convers...

    2024

  22. [30]

    P Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric. P Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05685 Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena . P...

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  24. [32]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.