CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 4Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningTopic ModelingMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research

Model Swarms: Collaborative Search to Adapt LLM Experts via Swarm Intelligence

Open access
Feng, Shangbin, Wang, Zifeng, Wang, Yike, Ebrahimi, Sayna, Palangi, Hamid, Miculicich, Lesly, Kulshrestha, Achin, Rauschmayr, Nathalie +4 more·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2410.11163arXiv 2410.11163
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We propose Model Swarms, a collaborative search algorithm to adapt LLMs via swarm intelligence, the collective behavior guiding individual systems. Specifically, Model Swarms starts with a pool of LLM experts and a utility function. Guided by the best-found checkpoints across models, diverse LLM experts collaboratively move in the weight space and optimize a utility function representing model adaptation objectives. Compared to existing model composition approaches, Model Swarms offers tuning-free model adaptation, works in low-data regimes with as few as 200 examples, and does not require assumptions about specific experts in the swarm or how they should be composed. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Model Swarms could flexibly adapt LLM experts to a single task, multi-task domains, reward models, as well as diverse human interests, improving over 12 model composition baselines by up to 21.0% across tasks and contexts. Further analysis reveals that LLM experts discover previously unseen capabilities in initial checkpoints and that Model Swarms enable the weak-to-strong transition of experts through the collaborative search process.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

MODEL SWARMS is a tuning-free collaborative search algorithm that treats LLM experts as particles and moves them in weight space to optimize any model-to-scalar utility function. It adapts experts in low-data regimes with as few as 200 examples and reports gains over 12 model-composition baselines across single-task, multi-task, reward-model, and human-interest objectives.

Key findings

  • MODEL SWARMS outperforms 12 model composition baselines by up to 21.0% across tasks and contexts; on single-task adaptation it improves over the second-strongest baseline by 13.3% on average and up to 29.7% on GSM8k.
  • It also reports average improvements of 5.7% on multi-task domains, 6.7% on reward-model adaptation, and a 70.8% human-evaluation win rate against initial experts across 16 human-interest topics.
  • Analysis finds correctness emergence: average C-surge of 48.2% and C-emerge of 36.0% to 53.5% (44.8% average in Figure 2), meaning collaborative search solved previously “impossible” problems for all initial experts.
  • Best-ending particles often did not start best: only 10.4% of ending-best particles started as best, and 56.9% started in the bottom half; more diverse initial experts helped, with 10×1 outperforming 1×10 by 35.3% on average.

Methods

  • Inspired by Particle Swarm Optimization, each LLM expert is a particle with a weight-space location and velocity; particles are guided by inertia, personal best, global best, and repulsion from global worst, then updated as \(x_i \leftarrow x_i + \lambda v_i\) and evaluated on utility \(f\).
  • Initialization expands the expert pool via pairwise linear interpolation crossover; searches use restarting for stalled particles, step-length scheduling, and stop when global best is unchanged for patience \(c\) or max iteration \(K\) is reached.
  • Main experiments use GEMMA-7B with 10 initial LoRA experts fine-tuned on 10 Tulu-v2 SFT domains; default search settings include \(N=20\), \(\phi_\lambda=0.95\), \(K=50\), with grid search over other hyperparameters. Evaluation covers 9 single-task datasets, 4 multi-task domains, 3 reward models, and 16 human-interest topics.

Limitations

  • The paper states that selecting the right pool of LLMs can be challenging, that MODEL SWARMS requires updating all experts at each iteration and may be computationally challenging, and that weight swarms are incompatible with heterogeneous model architectures; token swarms are only a preliminary prototype.
  • The paper states that unsuccessful searches might be confined to a local minimum, that MODEL SWARMS could not reliably optimize perplexity as a proxy for memorization, and that the method carries dual-use risk because malicious utility functions could steer adaptation toward harmful objectives.
  • Evident from the text: the main results are a prototype with GEMMA-7B and LoRA experts, human-interest evaluation uses Gemini-synthesized instructions and 13 internal annotators, and token-swarms/heterogeneous-architecture results are explicitly left for future work.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2410.11163

Cites

137 of 137 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 4 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Experiments demonstrate a consistent upward trend with the increase in expert diversity.

    “Experiments demonstrate a consistent upward trend with the increase in expert diversity”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    MODEL SWARMS achieves an average C-surge of 48.2% across the four datasets.

    “MODEL SWARMS achieves an average C-surge of 48.2% across the four datasets”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    MODEL SWARMS works in low-data regimes with as few as 200 examples.

    “Compared to existing model composition approaches, MODEL SWARMS offers tuning-free model adaptation, works in lowdata regimes with as few as 200 examples, and does not require assumptions about specific experts in the swarm or how they should be composed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the legal domain, MODEL SWARMS shows the most substantial performance improvement (11.3% and 10.5%).

    “in the legal domain, we see the most substantial performance improvement (11.3% and 10.5%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    On 16 topics evaluated by humans, Model Swarms produces experts on par or better than existing models in 85% of cases.

    “Human interest: On 16 topics evaluated by humans (e.g., electric vehicles and PhD applications), Model Swarms produces experts on par or better than existing models in 85% of cases.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 38
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DYNAMIC merging baselines achieve 11 out of all 18 second-place positions, with an average performance 15.6% and 2.1% higher than TRIVIAL and STATIC approaches.

    “DYNAMIC merging baselines achieve 11 out of all 18 second-place positions, with an average performance 15.6% and 2.1% higher than TRIVIAL and STATIC approaches.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MODEL SWARMS flexibly adapts LLM experts to a single task, multi-task domains, reward models, and diverse human interests.

    “Extensive experiments demonstrate that MODEL SWARMS could flexibly adapt LLM experts to a single task, multi-task domains, reward models, as well as diverse human interests”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    MODEL SWARMS can be seamlessly extended to token probability arithmetic for experts with different model architectures.

    “MODEL SWARMS could be accelerated with dropout-like strategies and seamlessly extended to token probability arithmetic for experts with different model architectures.”
    • Also stated in: § Different Model Architectures with Token Swarms · plain
      “the swarm intelligence arithmetic could be seamlessly carried out on token probability distributions for token swarms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Walk randomness factors ensure that the search is not deterministic, boosting particle exploration and are crucial in the collaborative search process.

    “Walk randomness factors r v , r p , r g , r w ∼ U(0, 1) ensure that the search is not deterministic, boosting particle exploration and are crucial in the collaborative search process (Table 5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The average improvement on reasoning tasks (21.0%) is higher than on knowledge (4.9%) and safety (14.1%) tasks.

    “The average improvement on reasoning tasks (middle three, 21.0%) is higher than on knowledge (first three, 4.9%) and safety (last three, 14.1%) tasks”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Optimizing reward model scores of general and conflicting preferences, MODEL SWARMS offers steerable experts that outperform baselines by up to 14.6% in controllability.

    “Reward model: Optimizing reward model scores of general and conflicting preferences, MODEL SWARMS offers steerable experts that outperform baselines by up to 14.6% in controllability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Experts improve 17.6% in LLM-as-a-judge scores and 17.0% in factuality scores on average.

    “experts improve 17.6% in LLM-asa-judge scores and 17.0% in factuality scores on average”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MODEL SWARMS achieves state-of-the-art performance on both verbose and concise RMs.

    “MODEL SWARMS achieves state-of-the-art performance on both verbose and concise RMs”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MODEL SWARMS offers steerability to adapt to diverse/conflicting user preferences, instantiated here as verbose vs. concise.

    “MODEL SWARMS offers impressive steerability to adapt to diverse/conflicting user preferences, instantiated here as verbose vs. concise.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MODEL SWARMS outperforms the second-strongest baseline by 13.3% on average and up to 29.7% on the GSM8k dataset.

    “It outperforms the second-strongest baseline by 13.3% on average and up to 29.7% on the GSM8k dataset.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    MODEL SWARMS achieve 44.8% average C-emerge, solving 44.8% of previously impossible problems for all initial model checkpoints.

    “44.8% average C-emerge, solving 44.8% of previously”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Figure 6 visualizes the movement of particles and demonstrates MODEL SWARMS' convergence quality.

    “we visualize the movement of particles in Figure 6 demonstrating its convergence quality”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MODEL SWARMS is general and works regardless of base model.

    “Results in Table 7 demonstrates that MODEL SWARMS is general and works regardless of base model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The peak storage requirement for MODEL SWARMS is 3n + 1 copies of the LoRA adapters; any n < 100 should be reasonable.

    “For space, the peak storage requirement is 3n + 1 copies of the LoRA adapters: given the tiny size of adapters, any n < 100 should be reasonable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The benefit of more GPUs gradually diminishes due to multiprocessing costs, with 5 GPUs being optimal on the authors' machine.

    “Figure 12 demonstrates that the benefit of more GPUs gradually diminishes due to multiprocessing costs, with 5 GPUs as being optimal on our machine.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Drop-K and Drop-N achieve a speedup of up to 80% with only a slight performance drop of 6.0% on average, indicating they are helpful strategies to reduce computational costs while maintaining good expert utility.

    “With an speed up of up to 80% comes with only a slight performance drop of 6.0% on average, indicating that Drop-K and Drop-N present two helpful strategies to reduce the computational costs of MODEL SWARMS while maintaining good expert utility.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Adding experts in the tested settings is generally helpful, while injecting fewer experts is more effective.

    “Adding experts in this way is generally helpful, while injecting fewer experts is more effective.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The collaboration of weak models could beat the top-1 expert, with an average improvement of 35.4% across the four datasets.

    “It is demonstrated that the collaboration of weak models could beat the top-1 expert, with an average improvement of 35.4% across the four datasets.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MODEL SWARMS produces mostly Pareto-optimal experts that are better than optimizing one dataset in most cases.

    “MODEL SWARMS produce mostly Pareto-Optimal experts that's better than optimizing one dataset in most cases.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MODEL SWARMS could steerably adapt to either verbose RM or concise RM, offering agency and controllability in model behavior.

    “In Figure 4 we demonstrate that MODEL SWARMS could steerably adapt to either verbose RM or concise RM, offering use agency and controllability in model behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MODEL SWARMS shows strong empirical performance and consistent improvement to the global best g.

    “we observe strong empirical performance of MODEL SWARMS and consistent improvement to the global best g”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    MODEL SWARMS improve both scores by 17.6% and 17.0% on average.

    “MODEL SWARMS improve both scores by 17.6% and 17.0% on average”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Boonsanong et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During a MODEL SWARMS search, experts explore the weight space, their utility scores wax and wane, leading to consistent bumps in global best scores and consequently better adapted language models.

    “Experts explore the weight space, their utility scores wax and wane, leading to consistent bumps in global best scores and consequently better adapted language models.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MODEL SWARMS performance shows a general upward trend with increasing diversity of initial LLM experts, with a 35.3% increase on average from the least to most diverse initial experts.

    “Results show a general upward trend and a 35.3% increase on average from the least to most diverse initial experts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    All 8 experts become better regardless of model architecture and the global best increased 5.7% and 11.9% on the two datasets.

    “All 8 experts become better regardless of model architecture and the global best increased 5.7% and 11.9% on the two datasets.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The time complexity of MODEL SWARMS is O(n) and O(k), indicating linear growth with the number of particles and iterations.

    “the time complexity is n(D 1 + 2D 2 + k[(5 + a)w + D 1 ]) and is O(n) and O(k), indicating linear growth with the amount of particles and iterations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The five major differences from classic swarm intelligence (crossover, random initial velocity, repel term, step length schedule, restarting failing particles) are all helpful for model performance, with crossover most useful.

    “It is demonstrated that they are all helpful for model performance, while 1) crossover is most useful.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Drop-K and Drop-N speed up MODEL SWARMS by up to 80% with only a 6.0% drop.

    “Performance with Drop-K and Drop-N, speeding up MODEL SWARMS by up to 80% with only a 6.0% drop.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Weak experts are not inherently less effective but maybe simply not fully adapted to the task/domain/context of use.

    “weak experts are not inherently less effective but maybe simply not fully adapted to the task/domain/context of use”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    MODEL SWARMS outputs are consistently preferred by both automatic metrics and human users.

    “This indicates that MODEL SWARMS outputs are consistently preferred by both automatic metrics and human users”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    In MODEL SWARMS, all experts have homogeneous roles and pursue the same goal/objective as represented by utility function f.

    “The role of all”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationown data

    SFT might be overfitting in the low-data comparison.

    “while SFT might be over-fitting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Any model-to-scalar utility function f could work and non-neural reward models are definitely possible.

    “any model-toscalar utility function f could work and non-neural RMs are definitely possible”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    MODEL SWARMS is a many-to-many operation that yields multiple adapted experts.

    “MODEL SWARMS is a”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    MODEL SWARMS is both searching and merging.

    “MODEL SWARMS is both searching and merging”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study employs the z-test with the one-tailed hypothesis and presents statistical significance test results on the applicable objective 1 single-task datasets.

    “We also employ the z-test with the one-tailed hypothesis and present statistical significance test results on the applicable objective 1: single task datasets.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Weight swarms induces more fundamental change of model capabilities through weight changes, but requires all experts to share the same architecture.

    “weight swarms induces more fundamental change of model capabilities through weight changes, but it would require all experts to share the same architecture”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    MODEL SWARMS requires the update of all experts at each iteration, which might be computationally challenging.

    “MODEL SWARMS require the update of all experts at each iteration, which might be computationally challenging.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    MODEL SWARMS is uniquely suited to low-data contexts where only a few hundred examples are readily available to serve as the utility function f.

    “MODEL SWARMS is uniquely suited to low-data contexts where only a few hundred examples are readily available to serve as the utility function f .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    MODEL SWARMS presents a modular, assumption-free, and flexible approach to compose and adapt diverse LLM experts guided by as few as 200 data instances.

    “MODEL SWARMS presents a modular, assumption-free, and flexible approach to compose and adapt diverse LLM experts guided by as few as 200 data instances.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Token swarms is much more flexible in expert architectures, but only changes the composition of token probabilities without touching on the model's parametric capabilities.

    “token swarms is much more flexible in expert architectures, but only changes the composition of token probabilities without touching on the model's parametric capabilities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    MODEL SWARMS has a dual-use risk: its flexible adaptation strategy using a model-to-scalar utility function f leads to malicious use cases by having malicious f s.

    “thanks to its flexible adaptation strategy by using a model-to-scalar utility function f , it also leads to malicious use cases by having malicious f s.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    A Fleiss' Kappa of 0.62 indicates moderate to strong inter-annotator agreement for the human evaluation.

    “resulting in a Fleiss' Kappa of 0.62 indicating moderate to strong inter-annotator agreement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Improvements on datasets marked *, **, *** are statistically significant at p < 0.1, p < 0.05, and p < 0.01 respectively, using a one-tailed z-test.

    “Table 10: Statistics of employed datasets.*, **, and *** indicates the improvement on this dataset is statistically significant with p < 0.1, p < 0.05, and p < 0.01 with one-tailed z-test.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Prediction merge is not applicable to open-ended generation tasks such as RealToxicityPrompts or tasks where the correct behavior vary across models such as AbstainQA.

    “Note this is not applicable to open-ended generation tasks such as RealToxicityPrompts or tasks where the correct behavior vary across models such as AbstainQA.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
45 of 45

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    MODEL SWARMS assumes access to various LLM experts (full models or LoRA adapters) fine-tuned on diverse tasks and domains.

    “MODEL SWARMS assumes the access to various LLM experts {x i } n i=1 , which could be full models or LoRA adapters (Hu et al., 2022) fine-tuned on diverse tasks and domains publicly available on model-sharing platforms (Wolf et al., 2019).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The utility function f is a valid scalar representation of the model adaptation objective.

    “It also requires a utility function f : x → R, mapping each expert onto a scalar value that should be optimized for model adaptation.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    MODEL SWARMS assumes access to a pool of initial experts for collaborative search to adapt language models.

    “MODEL SWARMS assumes access to a pool of initial experts for collaborative search to adapt language models.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The utility function f is a good measure such that an intentionally bad model has no chance of becoming the global best g.

    “while an intentionally”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The initial experts possess existing expertise that can be adapted without memorizing new information never seen in their training.

    “MODEL SWARMS aims to adapt language models based on their existing expertise rather than memorizing new information that was never seen in the training of these experts.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent approaches employ model swarms and multi-agent frameworks that aggregate outputs from multiple models in pursuit of diversity.

    “recent approaches employ model swarms and multi-agent frameworks that aggregate outputs from multiple models in pursuit of diversity [28, 37].”

    From Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond) (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

    The “Diamond in the Rough” section says Model Swarms benefits from a diverse pool of initial experts. But the “Different Model Architectures with Token Swarms” and “Impact Statement” sections say the default method combines models in weight space, not by aggregating their outputs; combining token probabilities is a proposed variant. The paper discusses multi-agent systems but does not establish that they aggregate model outputs in pursuit of diversity. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Global-worst particles also influence other particles

    Minor

    The robustness claim says a model influences others only when it becomes the global best. The method also uses the global worst to repel other particles, so a poorly performing model can influence their updates.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Abdelnabi, S., Gomaa, A., Sivaprasad, S., Schönherr, L., and Fritz, M. Llm-deliberation: Evaluating llms with interactive multi-agent negotiation game. In ICLR 2024 Workshop on Large Language Model (LLM) Agents, 2024.
  2. Du, Y. and Kaelbling, L. P. Position: Compositional gener- ative modeling: A single model is not all you need. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learn- ing, 2024.
  3. Sorensen, T., Moore, J., Fisher, J., Gordon, M. L., Mireshghallah, N., Rytting, C. M., Ye, A., Jiang, L., Lu, X., Dziri, N., et al. Position: A roadmap to pluralistic alignment. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024.
  4. PMLR, 2022a.
  5. Zhou, C., Liu, P., Xu, P., Iyer, S., Sun, J., Mao, Y., Ma, X., Efrat, A., Yu, P., Yu, L., et al. Lima: Less is more for alignment. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Feng, S., Wang, Z., Wang, Y., Ebrahimi, S., Palangi, H., Miculicich, L., Kulshrestha, A., Rauschmayr, N., Choi, Y., Tsvetkov, Y., Lee, C.-Y., & Pfister, T.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2410.11163
arXiv
2410.11163
OpenAlex
W4403573463
Semantic Scholar
492d4d5c7341ae63abdcb044b073dfd59e2a8ee3
Cited by
2
References
121
Citations by year
2025: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Yuhan
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Keywords
swarm intelligence, cooperative search, LLM adaptation, model composition, reward models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review