content.raw: Simple summarization of Evolving Deeper LLM Thinking (Google DeepMind)
content.type: text
content.value: Simple summarization of Evolving Deeper LLM Thinking (Google DeepMind)
content.type: new_line
content.type: new_line
content.raw: The process starts by posing a question. 
content.type: text
content.value: The process starts by posing a question. 
content.type: new_line
content.raw: 1) The LLM generates initial responses. 
content.type: text
content.value: 1) The LLM generates initial responses. 
content.type: new_line
content.raw: 2) These generated responses are evaluated according to specific criteria (program-based checker). 
content.type: text
content.value: 2) These generated responses are evaluated according to specific criteria (program-based checker). 
content.type: new_line
content.raw: 3) The LLM critiques the evaluated results. 
content.type: text
content.value: 3) The LLM critiques the evaluated results. 
content.type: new_line
content.raw: 4) The LLM refines the responses based on the evaluation, critique, and original responses. 
content.type: text
content.value: 4) The LLM refines the responses based on the evaluation, critique, and original responses. 
content.type: new_line
content.type: new_line
content.raw: The refined response is then fed back into step 2). If it meets the criteria, the process ends. Otherwise, the algorithm generates more responses based on the refined ones (with some being discarded, some remaining, and some responses potentially being merged). 
content.type: text
content.value: The refined response is then fed back into step 2). If it meets the criteria, the process ends. Otherwise, the algorithm generates more responses based on the refined ones (with some being discarded, some remaining, and some responses potentially being merged). 
content.type: new_line
content.type: new_line
content.raw: Through this process, it demonstrated excellent performance in complex scheduling problems (travel planning, meeting scheduling, etc.). It's a viable method for finding highly effective solutions in specific scenarios. 
content.type: text
content.value: Through this process, it demonstrated excellent performance in complex scheduling problems (travel planning, meeting scheduling, etc.). It's a viable method for finding highly effective solutions in specific scenarios. 
content.type: new_line
content.type: new_line
content.raw: However, there are two major drawbacks: 
content.type: text
content.value: However, there are two major drawbacks: 
content.type: new_line
content.raw: 🤔 An excessive number of API calls are required. (While the cost might not be very high, it leads to significant latency.)
content.type: text
content.value: 🤔 An excessive number of API calls are required. (While the cost might not be very high, it leads to significant latency.)
content.type: new_line
content.raw: 🤔 The evaluator is program-based. (This limits its use as a general method. It could potentially be modified/implemented using LLM as Judge, but that would introduce additional API costs for evaluation.) 
content.type: text
content.value: 🤔 The evaluator is program-based. (This limits its use as a general method. It could potentially be modified/implemented using LLM as Judge, but that would introduce additional API costs for evaluation.) 
content.type: new_line
content.type: new_line
content.href: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09891
content.raw: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09891
content.type: link
rawContent: Simple summarization of Evolving Deeper LLM Thinking (Google DeepMind)
  
  The process starts by posing a question. 
  1) The LLM generates initial responses. 
  2) These generated responses are evaluated according to specific criteria (program-based checker). 
  3) The LLM critiques the evaluated results. 
  4) The LLM refines the responses based on the evaluation, critique, and original responses. 
  
  The refined response is then fed back into step 2). If it meets the criteria, the process ends. Otherwise, the algorithm generates more responses based on the refined ones (with some being discarded, some remaining, and some responses potentially being merged). 
  
  Through this process, it demonstrated excellent performance in complex scheduling problems (travel planning, meeting scheduling, etc.). It's a viable method for finding highly effective solutions in specific scenarios. 
  
  However, there are two major drawbacks: 
  🤔 An excessive number of API calls are required. (While the cost might not be very high, it leads to significant latency.)
  🤔 The evaluator is program-based. (This limits its use as a general method. It could potentially be modified/implemented using LLM as Judge, but that would introduce additional API costs for evaluation.) 
  
  https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09891
reactions.reaction: 👍
reactions.users: chansung theainerd John6666 AtAndDev Aditya0619 KimRina Tonic OfferL karren-semvox sriramvasu