The DOI matches its DataCite record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 11 of the 27 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Qwen3 Technical Report
Open accessAbstract
In this work, we present Qwen3, the latest version of the Qwen model family. Qwen3 comprises a series of large language models (LLMs) designed to advance performance, efficiency, and multilingual capabilities. The Qwen3 series includes models of both dense and Mixture-of-Expert (MoE) architectures, with parameter scales ranging from 0.6 to 235 billion. A key innovation in Qwen3 is the integration of thinking mode (for complex, multi-step reasoning) and non-thinking mode (for rapid, context-driven responses) into a unified framework. This eliminates the need to switch between different models--such as chat-optimized models (e.g., GPT-4o) and dedicated reasoning models (e.g., QwQ-32B)--and enables dynamic mode switching based on user queries or chat templates. Meanwhile, Qwen3 introduces a thinking budget mechanism, allowing users to allocate computational resources adaptively during inference, thereby balancing latency and performance based on task complexity. Moreover, by leveraging the knowledge from the flagship models, we significantly reduce the computational resources required to build smaller-scale models, while ensuring their highly competitive performance. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that Qwen3 achieves state-of-the-art results across diverse benchmarks, including tasks in code generation, mathematical reasoning, agent tasks, etc., competitive against larger MoE models and proprietary models. Compared to its predecessor Qwen2.5, Qwen3 expands multilingual support from 29 to 119 languages and dialects, enhancing global accessibility through improved cross-lingual understanding and generation capabilities. To facilitate reproducibility and community-driven research and development, all Qwen3 models are publicly accessible under Apache 2.0.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
47 No basis given · 46 Own result · 22 Own interpretation · 7 Partly supported · 3 Sources not found · 2 Supported · 1 Not checked yet · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, we introduce YARN (Peng et al., 2023) and Dual Chunk Attention (DCA, An et al., 2024) to achieve a four-fold increase in sequence length capacity during inference.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Peng et al., 2023 source
The Abstract identifies this paper as presenting YaRN, so it supports the citation identifying that method. The sentence attributes DCA to a different citation and describes the four-fold increase as the citing authors’ objective, not as a result reported by Peng et al. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not matchedcites An et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Unlike previous studies (Xie et al., 2023;Fan et al., 2023;Liu et al., 2024b) that optimize the data mixture at the data source or domain level, our method optimizes the data mixture at the instance-level through extensive ablation experiments on small proxy models with the fine-grained data labels.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Xie et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Fan et al., 2023 source
The citation to Fan et al. supports the contrast in the citing sentence: DoGE optimizes sampling weights for data domains, not individual instances. Its Abstract describes learning domain weights with a proxy model, and the related-work passage explicitly distinguishes domain reweighting from instance-wise strategies. The sentence’s instance-level method and fine-grained labels describe the citing authors’ own work, not DoGE. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not matchedcites Liu et al., 2024b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Furthermore, we adopt the global-batch load balancing loss (Qiu et al., 2025) to encourage expert specialization.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Qiu et al., 2025 source
The Introduction says the paper proposes global-batch load balancing loss and reports that domain specialization clearly emerges when models are trained with it. The Method section describes how to implement the loss. This supports the citation as identifying a method used to encourage expert specialization. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Following Qwen2.5 (Yang et al., 2024b), we increase the base frequency of RoPE from 10,000 to 1,000,000 using the ABF technique (Xiong et al., 2023).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yang et al., 2024b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Xiong et al., 2023 source
Section 4.1 identifies RoPE with adjusted base frequency (RoPE ABF) as a method the source paper proposes and evaluates. The citation supports use of the ABF technique; the change to 1,000,000 is described as the citing authors’ own choice, not as a value used by Xiong et al. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Similar to Qwen2.5 (Yang et al., 2024b), we develop scaling laws for optimal hyper-parameters (e.g., learning rate scheduler, and batch size) predictions based on three pre-training stages mentioned above.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yang et al., 2024b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared to the pre-training data used in Qwen2.5, the number of supported languages has been significantly increased from 29 to 119, enhancing the model's linguistic coverage and cross-lingual capabilities.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Through this two-step process, we are able to obtain an additional set of high-quality text tokens, amounting to trillions in total.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The synthetic data generated by Qwen2.5-Math and Qwen2.5-Coder is of high quality and beneficial for pre-training.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The post-trained models, whether in thinking or nonthinking mode, perform competitively against leading proprietary models and large mixture-of-experts (MoE) models such as o1, o3-mini, and DeepSeek-V3.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks used are not contaminated by the pre-training data.
- Rests on an assumption: The benchmarks used are valid and sufficient measures of the models' general capabilities.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Experimental results show that our base pre-trained models achieve state-of-the-art performance.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks used are not contaminated by the pre-training data.
- Rests on an assumption: The benchmarks used are valid and sufficient measures of the models' general capabilities.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Qwen3 models are pre-trained through a three-stage process:”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
- It may state two separate claims as one. 62
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Qwen3 models utilize Qwen's tokenizer (Bai et al., 2023), which implements byte-level byte-pair encoding (BBPE, Brown et al., 2020;Wang et al., 2020;Sennrich et al., 2016) with a vocabulary size of 151,669.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bai et al., 2023 source
The Bai et al. citation identifies Qwen’s tokenizer. Section 2.2 (Tokenization) describes the QWEN tokenizer and its BPE method, supporting that identification; the BBPE method has separate citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites Brown et al., 2020 source
The Brown et al. citation is attached to the BBPE method, not to the Qwen3 tokenizer or its vocabulary size. Section 3.3 (p. 14) explicitly describes the tokenizer reused by GPT-3 as a byte-level BPE tokenizer, supporting that method citation. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites Wang et al., 2020 source
The Wang et al. citation is attached to byte-level byte-pair encoding (BBPE), not specifically to Qwen3 or its vocabulary size. The Introduction (p. 1) says the paper focuses on byte-level BPE, and the Conclusion (p. 5) says it proposes BBPE. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“To further expand the pre-training data corpus, we first employ the Qwen2.5-VLmodel (Bai et al., 2025) to perform text recognition on a large volume of PDF-like documents.The recognized text is then refined using the Qwen2.5 model (Yang et al., 2024b), which helps improve its quality.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bai et al., 2025 source
The Bai et al. citation identifies the Qwen2.5-VL model used for text recognition, not the citing authors’ PDF-processing workflow. Section 3.3.2 (p. 12) reports Qwen2.5-VL’s OCR and document-parsing capabilities. The separate claim about refining the text with Qwen2.5 is attached to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not matchedcites Yang et al., 2024b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The synthetic data generated by Qwen2.5-Math and Qwen2.5-Coder is of high quality and beneficial for pre-training.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Besides, we employ Qwen2.5 (Yang et al., 2024b), Qwen2.5-Math(Yang et al., 2024c), and Qwen2.5-Coder(Hui et al., 2024) models to synthesize trillions of text tokens in different formats, including textbooks, question-answering, instructions, and code snippets, covering dozens of domains.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yang et al., 2024b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Yang et al., 2024c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Hui et al., 2024 source
The citation to Hui et al. is attached specifically to “Qwen2.5-Coder,” identifying the model the citing authors say they employ. The source introduces the Qwen2.5-Coder series in its Abstract; the citing authors’ statement about their own synthesis of text tokens is not attributed specifically to this source. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The synthetic data generated by Qwen2.5-Math and Qwen2.5-Coder is of high quality and beneficial for pre-training.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The architecture of the Qwen3 dense models is similar to Qwen2.5 (Yang et al., 2024b), including using Grouped Query Attention (GQA, Ainslie et al., 2023), SwiGLU (Dauphin et al., 2017), Rotary Positional Embeddings (RoPE, Su et al., 2024), and RMSNorm (Jiang et al., 2023) with pre-normalization.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yang et al., 2024b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Ainslie et al., 2023 source
The citation is attached to Grouped Query Attention (GQA), not to the full list of Qwen3 architecture features. The Introduction says the paper proposes GQA, and §2.2 defines how it groups query heads. Our copy does not give page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not matchedcites Dauphin et al., 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Well-designed rule-based rewards can assess the correctness of model outputs with high precision, preventing issues like reward hacking.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Lambert et al., 2024 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 6, “Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards” (page not provided), describes deterministic answer matching or constraint verification that rewards outputs judged correct on verifiable tasks. It does not establish that these checks have high precision or prevent reward hacking; searches for reward hacking and verification precision found no such finding. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Qwen3 MoE models have 128 total experts with 8 activated experts per token.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the improvements of the Qwen3 MoE architecture, the scale-up of the training tokens, and more advanced training strategies, the Qwen3 MoE base models can outperform the Qwen2.5 MoE base models with less than 1/2 activated parameters and fewer total parameters.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks used are not contaminated by the pre-training data.
- Rests on an assumption: The benchmarks used are valid and sufficient measures of the models' general capabilities.
In the paper
“Compared with Qwen2.5 (Yang et al., 2024b), we have significantly expanded the scale and diversity of our training data.Specifically, we collected twice as many pre-training tokens-covering three times more languages.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yang et al., 2024b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All Qwen3 models are trained on a large and diverse dataset consisting of 119 languages and dialects, with a total of 36 trillion tokens.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“all Qwen3 models are publicly accessible under Apache 2.0.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, Qwen3 has been pre-trained on 36 trillion tokens covering up to 119 languages and dialects”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qwen3 is a collection of open-weight large language models (LLMs) that achieve state-of-the-art performance across a wide variety of tasks and domains.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks used are not contaminated by the pre-training data.
- Rests on an assumption: The benchmarks used are valid and sufficient measures of the models' general capabilities.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Empirical evaluations demonstrate that Qwen3 achieves state-of-the-art results across diverse benchmarks, including tasks in code generation, mathematical reasoning, agent tasks, etc., competitive against larger MoE models and proprietary models.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks used are not contaminated by the pre-training data.
- Rests on an assumption: The benchmarks used are valid and sufficient measures of the models' general capabilities.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, the flagship model, Qwen3-235B-A22B, is an MoE model with a total of 235 billion parameters and 22 billion activated ones per token.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Compared with the previously open-source SOTA dense and MoE base models (such as DeepSeek-V3 Base, Llama-4-Maverick Base, and Qwen2.5-72B-Base),Qwen3-235B-A22B-Base outperforms these models in most tasks with significantly fewer total parameters or activated parameters.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites DeepSeek-V3 Base
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Llama-4-Maverick Base
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Qwen2.5-72B-Base
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks used are not contaminated by the pre-training data.
- Rests on an assumption: The benchmarks used are valid and sufficient measures of the models' general capabilities.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared to its predecessor Qwen2.5, Qwen3 expands multilingual support from 29 to 119 languages and dialects”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The long context corpus includes 75% of text between 16,384 to 32,768 tokens in length, and 25% of text between 4,096 to 16,384 in length.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Qwen3 series includes 6 dense models, namely Qwen3-0.6B,Qwen3-1.7B,Qwen3-4B, Qwen3-8B, Qwen3-14B, and Qwen3-32B, and 2 MoE models, Qwen3-30B-A3B and Qwen3-235B-A22B.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These architectural and training innovations have yielded substantial improvements in model performance across downstream tasks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Distillation from advanced teacher models significantly outperforms reinforcement learning in performance and training efficiency.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, by leveraging the knowledge from the flagship models, we significantly reduce the computational resources required to build smaller-scale models, while ensuring their highly competitive performance.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This dataset includes high-quality content in various domains such as coding, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), reasoning tasks, books, multilingual texts, and synthetic data.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Qwen3 series includes models of both dense and Mixture-of-Expert (MoE) architectures, with parameter scales ranging from 0.6 to 235 billion.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, Qwen3-235B-A22B (Thinking) is also highly competitive to the closed-source OpenAI-o1, Grok-3-Beta (Think), and Gemini2.5-Pro,substantially narrowing the gap in the reasoning capabilities between open-source and close-source models.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks accurately measure the capabilities they are intended to measure (e.g., reasoning, alignment, multilingual ability).
- Rests on an assumption: The baseline scores obtained from different sources (leaderboards, papers) are comparable to the scores produced by the paper's evaluation setup.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, we achieve consistent improvements in both training reward and validation performance over the course of a single RL run, without any manual intervention on hyperparameters.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The training methods and hyperparameters used in the RL stages generalize to other settings and do not overfit to the specific benchmarks.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) Our flagship dense model, Qwen3-32B, outperforms our previous strongest reasoning model, QwQ-32B, in most of the benchmarks, and performs comparably to the closed-source OpenAI-o3mini, indicating its compelling reasoning capabilities.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks accurately measure the capabilities they are intended to measure (e.g., reasoning, alignment, multilingual ability).
- Rests on an assumption: The baseline scores obtained from different sources (leaderboards, papers) are comparable to the scores produced by the paper's evaluation setup.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, we find that models capable of handling both modes proficiently perform consistently well under different thinking budgets.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They exceed our previous Qwen2.5-32B-Instructmodel with significantly fewer activated and total parameters, allowing for more efficient and costeffective performance.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An additional advantage of Thinking Mode Fusion is that, once the model learns to respond in both non-thinking and thinking modes, it naturally develops the ability to handle intermediate cases-generating responses based on incomplete thinking.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) Stage 4 further strengthens the model's general, instruction-following, and agent capabilities in both thinking and non-thinking modes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“2. In thinking mode, the model's performance slightly degrades.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results, summarized in Table 21, show that distillation achieves significantly better performance than reinforcement learning while requiring approximately only 1/10 of the GPU hours.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(1) From Table 15, Qwen3-30B-A3B and Qwen3-14B (Thinking) are both highly competitive to QwQ-32B, especially on the reasoning-related benchmarks.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks accurately measure the capabilities they are intended to measure (e.g., reasoning, alignment, multilingual ability).
- Rests on an assumption: The baseline scores obtained from different sources (leaderboards, papers) are comparable to the scores produced by the paper's evaluation setup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with our previous flagship open-source dense model Qwen2.5-72B-Base,Qwen3-235B-A22B-Base surpasses the latter in all benchmarks and uses fewer than 1/3 of the activated parameters.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks used are not contaminated by the pre-training data.
- Rests on an assumption: The benchmarks used are valid and sufficient measures of the models' general capabilities.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared to Llama-4-Scout-Base, Qwen3-32B-Base significantly outperforms it on all 15 benchmarks, with only one-third of the number of parameters of Llama-4-Scout-Base, but twice the number of activated parameters.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks used are not contaminated by the pre-training data.
- Rests on an assumption: The benchmarks used are valid and sufficient measures of the models' general capabilities.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Stage 3 also enhances the model's general and instruction-following capabilities in thinking mode, with CounterFactQA improving by 10.9 points and LengthCtrl by 8.0 points.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(3) Our lightweight models, including Qwen3-30B-A3B, Qwen3-14B, and other smaller dense ones, possess consistently superior performance to the open-source models with a close or larger amount of parameters, proving the success of our Strong-to-Weak Distillation approach.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks accurately measure the capabilities they are intended to measure (e.g., reasoning, alignment, multilingual ability).
- Rests on an assumption: The baseline scores obtained from different sources (leaderboards, papers) are comparable to the scores produced by the paper's evaluation setup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With only 1/5 activated non-embedding parameters, Qwen3-30B-A3B significantly outperforms Qwen2.5-14B-Base on all tasks, and achieves comparable performance to Qwen3-14B-Base and Qwen2.5-32B-Base,which brings us significant advantages in inference and training costs.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks used are not contaminated by the pre-training data.
- Rests on an assumption: The benchmarks used are valid and sufficient measures of the models' general capabilities.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although Qwen3-32B-Base has less than half the number of parameters of Qwen2.5-72B-Base, it outperforms Qwen2.5-72B-Base in 10 of the 15 evaluation benchmarks.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks used are not contaminated by the pre-training data.
- Rests on an assumption: The benchmarks used are valid and sufficient measures of the models' general capabilities.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) Compared with the previously state-of-the-art open-source model DeepSeek-V3-Base, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Base outperforms DeepSeek-V3-Base on 14 out of 15 evaluation benchmarks with only about 1/3 the total number of parameters and 2/3 activated parameters, demonstrating the powerful and cost-effectiveness of our models.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) From Table 12, Qwen3-235B-A22B (Non-thinking) exceeds the other leading open-source models, including DeepSeek-V3, LLaMA-4-Maverick, and our previous flagship model Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct, and also surpasses the closed-source GPT-4o-2024-11-20 in 18/23 the benchmarks, indicating its inherent strong capabilities even when not enhanced with the deliberate thinking process.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks accurately measure the capabilities they are intended to measure (e.g., reasoning, alignment, multilingual ability).
- Rests on an assumption: The baseline scores obtained from different sources (leaderboards, papers) are comparable to the scores produced by the paper's evaluation setup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, these edge-side models exhibit impressive performance and outperform baselines even with more parameters, including our previous Qwen2.5 models, in either the thinking or the non-thinking mode.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We observe that using a large batch size and a high number of rollouts per query, along with off-policy training to improve sample efficiency, is beneficial to the training process.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The training methods and hyperparameters used in the RL stages generalize to other settings and do not overfit to the specific benchmarks.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model was pre-trained on an extensive dataset containing 36 trillion tokens, enabling it to understand and generate text in 119 languages and dialects.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, due to the advantage of the model architecture, the inference costs and training costs on each trillion tokens of Qwen3-235B-A22B-Base are much cheaper than those of Qwen2.5-72B-Base.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is noteworthy that Qwen3-30B-A3B achieves comparable performance to QwQ-32B with a smaller model size and less than”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks accurately measure the capabilities they are intended to measure (e.g., reasoning, alignment, multilingual ability).
- Rests on an assumption: The baseline scores obtained from different sources (leaderboards, papers) are comparable to the scores produced by the paper's evaluation setup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Particularly, Qwen3-32B (Non-thinking) performs on par with Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct on the general tasks with significant advantages on the alignment, multilingual, and reasoning-related tasks, again proving the fundamental improvements of Qwen3 over our previous Qwen2.5 series models.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks accurately measure the capabilities they are intended to measure (e.g., reasoning, alignment, multilingual ability).
- Rests on an assumption: The baseline scores obtained from different sources (leaderboards, papers) are comparable to the scores produced by the paper's evaluation setup.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, Qwen3-32B (Thinking) also competes with the closed-source OpenAI-o3-mini (medium) with better alignment and multilingual performance.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks accurately measure the capabilities they are intended to measure (e.g., reasoning, alignment, multilingual ability).
- Rests on an assumption: The baseline scores obtained from different sources (leaderboards, papers) are comparable to the scores produced by the paper's evaluation setup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qwen3-32B is also remarkably performant in the non-thinking mode and surpasses our previous flagship non-reasoning dense model, Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks accurately measure the capabilities they are intended to measure (e.g., reasoning, alignment, multilingual ability).
- Rests on an assumption: The baseline scores obtained from different sources (leaderboards, papers) are comparable to the scores produced by the paper's evaluation setup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(1) Stage 3 integrates the non-thinking mode into the model, which already possesses thinking capabilities after the first two stages of training.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(1) From Table 11, with only 60% activated and 35% total parameters, Qwen3-235B-A22B (Thinking) outperforms DeepSeek-R1 on 17/23 the benchmarks, particularly on the reasoning-demanded tasks (e.g., mathematics, agent, and coding), demonstrating the state-of-the-art reasoning capabilities of Qwen3-235B-A22B among open-source models.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks accurately measure the capabilities they are intended to measure (e.g., reasoning, alignment, multilingual ability).
- Rests on an assumption: The baseline scores obtained from different sources (leaderboards, papers) are comparable to the scores produced by the paper's evaluation setup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, Qwen3-32B-Base achieves 65.54 on MMLU-Pro and 39.78 on SuperGPQA, significantly outperforming its predecessor Qwen2.5-32B-Base.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks used are not contaminated by the pre-training data.
- Rests on an assumption: The benchmarks used are valid and sufficient measures of the models' general capabilities.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qwen3 features both thinking mode and non-thinking mode, allowing users to dynamically manage the number of tokens used for complex thinking tasks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(1) From Table 13, Qwen3-32B (Thinking) outperforms QwQ-32B on 17/23 the benchmarks, making it the new state-of-the-art reasoning model at the sweet size of 32B.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The evaluation benchmarks accurately measure the capabilities they are intended to measure (e.g., reasoning, alignment, multilingual ability).
- Rests on an assumption: The baseline scores obtained from different sources (leaderboards, papers) are comparable to the scores produced by the paper's evaluation setup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It leads to better immediate performance, as indicated by higher Pass@1 scores, and also improves the model's ability of exploration, as reflected in improved Pass@64 results.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is worth noting that this ability is not explicitly trained but emerges naturally as a result of applying Thinking Mode Fusion.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model was pre-trained on an extensive dataset containing 36 trillion tokens, enabling it to understand and generate text in 119 languages and dialects.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Besides, we remove QKV-bias used in Qwen2 (Yang et al., 2024a) and introduce QK-Norm (Dehghani et al., 2023) to the attention mechanism to ensure stable training for Qwen3.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yang et al., 2024a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dehghani et al., 2023 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This eliminates the need to switch between different models--such as chat-optimized models (e.g., GPT-4o) and dedicated reasoning models (e.g., QwQ-32B)--and enables dynamic mode switching based on user queries or chat templates.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All models are evaluated using the same evaluation pipeline and the widely-used evaluation settings to ensure fair comparison.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This design ensures both high performance and efficient inference.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach allows developers to manage and control reasoning behaviors, while also reducing the cost and complexity of deploying separate models for thinking and non-thinking tasks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the RL rollout, the model is allowed to perform complete multi-turn interaction cycles with real environment execution feedback, thereby improving its performance and stability in long-horizon decision-making tasks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This design ensures internal format consistency within the model and allows developers to prevent the model from engaging in thinking behavior by concatenating an empty think block in the chat template.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of these tables demonstrate that the Qwen3 series models achieve competitive performance across all evaluated benchmarks, showcasing their strong multilingual capabilities.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This helps prevent the model from relying on superficial guessing and ensures that only complex problems requiring deeper reasoning are included.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The filtering criteria and human annotation in dataset construction correctly identify and remove low-quality or non-verifiable queries/responses without removing valuable ones.
- Rests on an assumption: The Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct model can accurately identify non-verifiable queries and assess response accuracy.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach, which does not depend on a reference answer, can handle a broader range of queries while effectively enhancing the model's engagement and helpfulness.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, the ThinkFollow score improves to 98.9, ensuring accurate mode switching.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach ensures that the model's potential is not limited, allowing for greater flexibility and improvement during the subsequent reinforcement learning (RL) phase.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The filtering criteria and human annotation in dataset construction correctly identify and remove low-quality or non-verifiable queries/responses without removing valuable ones.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This helps lightweight student models develop basic reasoning skills and the ability to switch between different modes of thinking, laying a solid foundation for the next on-policy training phase.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This method allows for more flexible handling of diverse tasks without requiring strict formatting, avoiding false negatives that can occur with purely rule-based rewards.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results, once again, demonstrate the efficacy of our Strong-to-Weak Distillation approach, making it possible for us to build the lightweight Qwen3 models with remarkably reduced costs and efforts.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, distillation from teacher logits enables the student model to expand its exploration space and enhance its reasoning potential, as evidenced by the improved pass@64 scores on the AIME'24 and AIME'25 benchmarks after distillation, compared to the initial checkpoint.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ThinkFollow benchmark score of 88.7 indicates that the model has developed an initial ability to switch between modes, though it still occasionally makes errors.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach enhances model performance while effectively imparting robust mode-switching capabilities.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The evaluation benchmarks used are not contaminated by the pre-training data.
“Empirical evaluations demonstrate that Qwen3 achieves state-of-the-art results across diverse benchmarks, including tasks in code generation, mathematical reasoning, agent tasks, etc., competitive against larger MoE models and proprietary models.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The benchmarks used are valid and sufficient measures of the models' general capabilities.
“Empirical evaluations demonstrate that Qwen3 achieves state-of-the-art results across diverse benchmarks, including tasks in code generation, mathematical reasoning, agent tasks, etc., competitive against larger MoE models and proprietary models.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The synthetic data generated by Qwen2.5-Math and Qwen2.5-Coder is of high quality and beneficial for pre-training.
“Besides, we employ Qwen2.5 (Yang et al., 2024b), Qwen2.5-Math(Yang et al., 2024c), and Qwen2.5-Coder(Hui et al., 2024) models to synthesize trillions of text tokens in different formats, including textbooks, question-answering, instructions, and code snippets, covering dozens of domains.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The evaluation benchmarks accurately measure the capabilities they are intended to measure (e.g., reasoning, alignment, multilingual ability).
“To comprehensively evaluate the quality of instruction-tuned models, we adopted automatic benchmarks to assess model performance under both thinking and non-thinking modes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The baseline scores obtained from different sources (leaderboards, papers) are comparable to the scores produced by the paper's evaluation setup.
“Some baselines are derived from the BFCL leaderboard, taking the higher scores between FC and Prompt formats.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The filtering criteria and human annotation in dataset construction correctly identify and remove low-quality or non-verifiable queries/responses without removing valuable ones.
“When QwQ-32B consistently fails to generate correct solutions, human annotators manually assess the accuracy of the responses.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct model can accurately identify non-verifiable queries and assess response accuracy.
“In the query filtering phase, we use Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct to identify and remove queries that are not easily verifiable.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The training methods and hyperparameters used in the RL stages generalize to other settings and do not overfit to the specific benchmarks.
“As a result, we achieve consistent improvements in both training reward and validation performance over the course of a single RL run, without any manual intervention on hyperparameters.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The current effort to independently focus on improving models' longcontext retrieval and short-context capacities at training (Meta, 2024; Chen Wu and Yin Song and Eden Duthie, 2024; Yang et al., 2025; AI et al., 2024) may not fully translate to an overall improvement in long-context ability: failure is possible despite the model excelling in both.”
From Context Length Alone Hurts LLM Performance Despite Perfect Retrieval (2025) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2025
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, the rapid release of new and more capable LLMs (Grattafiori et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2025) necessitates a continuous and costly re-training cycle, as the entire fine-tuning process must be repeated on D train to leverage the increased knowledge and reasoning abilities of each new base model on the downstream task.”
From TT-SI: Self-Improving LLM Agents with Test-Time Training (2026) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2025
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Qwen3-14B was selected because it reliably performs paraphrasing, document-grounded QA generation, and translation.”
From Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models with Synthetic Data (2026) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2025
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The results show that thinking models make fewer arithmetic errors than instruct models, consistent with their stronger reasoning ability (Yu et al., 2025; Guo et al., 2025a; Yang et al., 2025).”
From StockBench: Can LLM Agents Trade Stocks Profitably In Real-world Markets? (2025) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2025
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“One of the most widely adopted designs is the 'global-batch' LBL introduced by Shazeer et al. (2017), which underpins several state-of-the-art open models such as Qwen 3 (Yang et al., 2025).”
From ShinkaEvolve: Towards Open-Ended And Sample-Efficient Program Evolution (2025) · cites this paper as Yang et al. (2025)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“it has been shown that it is also possible to perform RLVR training on a base model, leading to good math and reasoning performance [21, 29, 31].”
From Generalizing Verifiable Instruction Following (2025) · cites this paper as [31]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“More recently RL has been extensively used for improving code and math performance in verifiable domains [34,64,89,134,204]”
From RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as [204]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Different model sizes, such as 7B and 72B, different downstream tasks, and different architectures within the same model family, such as dense Qwen3 [21] and Qwen3 MoE, require task-specific boundaries.”
From SparseX: Efficient Segment-Level KV Cache Sharing for Interleaved LLM Serving (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Our synthetic corpora were generated exclusively with Qwen3-14B (Yang et al., 2025).”
From Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models with Synthetic Data (2026) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2025
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Although reasoning-tuned models such as Qwen3235B-Think and Qwen3-30B-Think exhibit strong performance in tasks requiring complex reasoning, including math and coding (Yang et al., 2025), they do not consistently outperform instructiontuned counterparts in this trading task.”
From StockBench: Can LLM Agents Trade Stocks Profitably In Real-world Markets? (2025) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2025
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Techniques such as grouped-query attention (GQA), multihead latent attention (MLA), and hybrid attention change the KV cache memory footprint but not the underlying management problem [21], [22].”
From Unified AI Gateway: A Framework for Joint Model Routing and KV Cache Management (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“With the Qwen3-Coder 480B [27, 8] model, Observation Masking achieved a solve rate of 54.8%, a slight improvement over the LLM-Summary's 53.8%.”
From The Complexity Trap: Simple Observation Masking Is as Efficient as LLM Summarization for Agent Context Management (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Qwen3-235B-A22B-Base
“(3) Compared to Llama-4-Scout-Base, Qwen3-32B-Base significantly outperforms it on all 15 benchmarks, with only one-third of the number of parameters of Llama-4-Scout-Base, but twice the number of activated parameters.”
§ Qwen3-235B-A22B-Base
“INCLUDE 64.35 69.05 68.94 68.09 67.87”
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [15]15. Yann N. Dauphin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. Language modeling with gated convolutional networks. In ICML, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 933-941.
- [16]16. PMLR, 2017.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–225 of 225
Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfaces
Merrill, M. A., Shaw, A. G., Carlini, N., Li, B., Raj, H., Bercovich, I., Shi, L., Shin, J. Y., Walshe, T., Buchanan, E. K., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.11868 · Cited by 392
Self-citationZhang, C., Wan, Z., Yu, X., Wu, J., Zhou, Y., Tsang, I., & An, B. (2026) · arXiv
Tamarin (HSQ): Reversible Hierarchical KV-Cache Compression for LLM Inference
Bazakov, A., & Kiselev, K. (2026) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10297225/v1
AJ-Bench: Benchmarking Agent-as-a-Judge for Environment-Aware Evaluation
Shi, W., Wang, Y., Zhao, Y., Chen, Y., Feng, F., Hao, X., Su, X., Gu, Q., Su, H., Cai, X., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.18240
HiEviDR-Bench: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research
Sun, Y., Peng, C., Yan, Y., Liu, Z., Mei, S., Xu, B., Zhou, X., Chen, C., & Sun, M. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.25151
“Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) [17, 40, 44] have given rise to deep research methods that can autonomously decompose queries, perform iterative retrieval, and generate citation-grounded reports resembling human research outputs [5].”
Wang, Y., Zhang, X., Yao, K., Zeng, Z., Song, K., Lin, J., & Shen, Z. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.05241
Self-citationAutomated Discovery Has No Universally Superior Harness
Gupta, A., Lei, J., Lu, A., Anumanchipalli, G., & Choshen, L. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.18235
AlphaResearch: Accelerating New Algorithm Discovery with Language Models
Yu, Z., Feng, K., Zhao, Y., He, S., Zhang, X.-P., & Cohan, A. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.08522
Self-citationShinkaEvolve: Towards Open-Ended And Sample-Efficient Program Evolution
Lange, R. T., Imajuku, Y., & Cetin, E. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.19349
PersistBench: When Should Long-Term Memories Be Forgotten by LLMs?
Pulipaka, S., Chen, O., Sharma, M., Bajwa, T. S., Raina, V., & Sheth, I. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01146 · Cited by 29
MAPLE: Multi-Aspect Panels of LLM Evaluators for Open-Ended Questions
Jinji, M., Atarashi, K., Takeuchi, K., & Kashima, H. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1351
“3-70B-instruct (Grattafiori et al., 2024), and Qwen-3-32B (Yang et al., 2025), while the closed-source models are GPT-5.”
Judging the Judges: Confidence and Disagreement in Rubrics as Rewards
Liu, M. T.-Y., Harrington, A., Darrell, T., & Bai, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.21179
LiveMedBench: A Contamination-Limited Medical Benchmark for LLMs with Automated Rubric Evaluation
Yan, Z., Song, D., Fang, Z., Ji, Y., Li, X., Li, Q., & Sun, L. (2026) · Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V.2 · doi:10.1145/3770855.3817579
MIRAGE: Defending Long-Form RAG Against Misinformation Pollution
Eletter, S., Zeng, R., Wang, Y., Panov, M., Rubashevskii, A., & Nakov, P. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.05069
Magentic Marketplace: An Open-Source Environment for Studying Agentic Markets
Bansal, G., Hua, W., Huang, Z., Fourney, A., Swearngin, A., Epperson, W., Payne, T., Hofman, J. M., Lucier, B., Singh, C., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25779
Writing-System-Level Tokenizer Adaptation for Byte-Level BPE
Didenko, B. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.00582
SERA: Soft-Verified Efficient Repository Agents
Shen, E., Tormoen, D., Shah, S., Farhadi, A., & Dettmers, T. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.20789
PREPING: Zero-Task Agent Memory Construction via Self-Practice
Choi, Y., Park, S., Kang, M., Baek, J., & Hwang, S. J. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.13880
GISA: A Benchmark for General Information-Seeking Assistant
Zhu, Y., Zhang, X., Zhang, M., Jin, J., Zhang, L., Song, X., Zhao, K., Zeng, W., Tang, R., Li, H., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.08543
Self-citationWWW.Serve: Interconnecting Global LLM Services through Decentralization
Wang, H., Xia, Z., Chen, Z., & Chen, B. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.20661
Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback
Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Sun, H., Feng, K., Lu, C., Yang, C., & Meng, H. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03106 · Cited by 92
Self-citationSignNav: Directional Signage-Cue Guided Visual Navigation in Large-Scale Indoor Environments
Sun, J., Huang, Y., Li, H., Xiao, S., Guo, S., Ghaffari, M., Li, Q., Xu, C., & Kong, H. (2026) · IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · doi:10.1109/lra.2026.3730302
VehicleMemBench: An Executable Benchmark for Multi-User Long-Term Memory in In-Vehicle Agents
Chen, Y., Xu, Y., Ding, X., Fang, X., Liu, S., Lin, L., Zhang, Q., Li, Y., Liu, Q., & Xu, T. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.23840
Self-citationLLMs Cannot Reliably Judge (Yet?): A Comprehensive Assessment on the Robustness of LLM-as-a-Judge
Li, S., Xu, C., Wang, J., Gong, X., Chen, C., Zhang, J., Wang, J., Lam, K.-Y., & Ji, S. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.09443 · Cited by 40
“5 [4], have achieved remarkable proficiency across a wide range of tasks.”
Self-citationMeta Context Engineering via Agentic Skill Evolution
Ye, H., He, X., Arak, V., Dong, H., & Song, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21557 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, A., Li, A., Yang, B., Zhang, B., Hui, B., Zheng, B., Yu, B., Gao, C., Huang, C., Lv, C., Zheng, C., Liu, D., Zhou, F., Huang, F., Hu, F., Ge, H., Wei, H., Lin, H., Tang, J., Yang, J., Tu, J., Zhang, J., Yang, J., Yang, J., Zhou, J., Zhou, J., Lin, J., Dang, K., Bao, K., Yang, K., Yu, L., Deng, L., Li, M., Xue, M., Li, M., Zhang, P., Wang, P., Zhu, Q., Men, R., Gao, R., Liu, S., Luo, S., Li, T., Tang, T., Yin, W., Ren, X., Wang, X., Zhang, X., Ren, X., Fan, Y., Su, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Wan, Y., Liu, Y., Wang, Z., Cui, Z., Zhang, Z., Zhou, Z., & Qiu, Z.
- ORCID
- Li, Anfeng
- Yang, Baosong
- Zhang, Beichen
- Hui, Binyuan
- Yu, Bowen
- Gao, Chang
- Zheng, Chujie
- Liu, Dayiheng
- Huang, Fei
- Wei, Haoran
- Yang, Jian
- Tu, Jianhong
- Zhang, Jianwei
- Yang, Jiaxi
- Zhou, Jing
- Zhou, Jingren
- Lin, Junyang
- Bao, Keqin
- Yang, Kexin
- Yu, Le
- Li, Mei
- Li, Mingze
- Zhang, Pei
- Wang, Peng
- Men, Rui
- Liu, Shixuan
- Luo, Shuang
- Li, Tianhao
- Wang, Xinyu
- Ren, Xuancheng
- Zhang, Yichang
- Zhang, Yinger
- Wang, Zekun
- Zhou, Zhipeng
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2505.09388
- OpenAlex
- W4414939355
- Cited by
- 17,283
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14351 · 2025: 2907
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- Qwen3, large language models, mixture of experts, thinking mode, dynamic mode switching, multilingual support, code generation, mathematical reasoning, inference efficiency, knowledge distillation
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
