CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 22Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningArtificial Intelligence Applications

Kimi K2.5: Visual Agentic Intelligence

Open access
Kimi Team, Bai, Tongtong, Bai, Yifan, Bao, Yiping, Cai, S. H., Cao, Yuan, Chai, Ziwei, Charles, Y. +329 more·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2602.02276arXiv 2602.02276
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We introduce Kimi K2.5, an open-source multimodal agentic model designed to advance general agentic intelligence. K2.5 emphasizes the joint optimization of text and vision so that two modalities enhance each other. This includes a series of techniques such as joint text-vision pre-training, zero-vision SFT, and joint text-vision reinforcement learning. Building on this multimodal foundation, K2.5 introduces Agent Swarm, a self-directed parallel agent orchestration framework that dynamically decomposes complex tasks into heterogeneous sub-problems and executes them concurrently. Extensive evaluations show that Kimi K2.5 achieves state-of-the-art results across various domains including coding, vision, reasoning, and agentic tasks. Agent Swarm also reduces latency by up to $4.5\times$ over single-agent baselines. We release the post-trained Kimi K2.5 model checkpoint to facilitate future research and real-world applications of agentic intelligence.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Kimi K2.5 is an open-source multimodal agentic model that jointly optimizes text and vision through native multimodal pre-training, zero-vision SFT, and joint multimodal RL. It introduces Agent Swarm, a learned parallel agent orchestration framework, and reports state-of-the-art results across coding, vision, reasoning, and agentic tasks, with up to 4.5× latency reduction over single-agent baselines.

Key findings

  • Agent Swarm improves agentic search: BrowseComp 78.4% vs. single-agent K2.5 60.6%, WideSearch 79.0% vs. 72.7% Item-F1, and In-house Swarm Bench 58.3% vs. 41.6%. On WideSearch, it reduces execution time by 3×–4.5× compared with a single-agent baseline.
  • Reasoning and coding results include AIME 2025 96.1%, HMMT 2025 95.4%, IMO-AnswerBench 81.8%, SWE-Bench Verified 76.8%, SWE-Bench Multilingual 73.0%, LiveCodeBench v6 85.0%, TerminalBench 2.0 50.8%, PaperBench 63.5%, SciCode 48.7%, and CyberGym 41.3.
  • Vision results include MMMU-Pro 78.5%, MathVision 84.2%, MathVista (mini) 90.1%, OCRBench 92.3%, OmniDocBench 1.5 88.8%, InfoVQA 92.6%, ZeroBench 9% and 11% with tools, BLINK 78.9%, and MMVP 87.0%.
  • Cross-modal transfer is reported: vision RL improves MMLU-Pro from 84.7 to 86.4, GPQA-Diamond from 84.3 to 86.4, and LongBench v2 from 56.7 to 58.9. Toggle reduces output tokens by 25–30% with negligible performance impact.

Methods

  • Foundation: Kimi K2, a trillion-parameter MoE transformer with 1.04T total parameters and 32B activated, using 384 experts with 8 activated per token. K2.5 adds MoonViT-3D native-resolution vision encoder, an MLP projector, and the K2 MoE language model. Pre-training processes approximately 15T tokens across ViT training, joint pre-training, and long-context mid-training; stage token volumes are 1T, 15T, and 500B→200B, with sequence lengths 4096, 4096, and 32768→262144.
  • Post-training: zero-vision SFT uses only text SFT data to activate visual agentic capabilities; outcome-based visual RL covers visual grounding/counting, chart/document understanding, and vision-critical STEM; joint multimodal RL organizes domains by ability rather than modality. Agent Swarm uses PARL with a trainable orchestrator and frozen subagents, rewards for parallel instantiation, subagent finish rate, and task outcome, and a critical-steps resource constraint.
  • Evaluation: benchmarks span reasoning/general, coding, agentic capabilities, image understanding, video understanding, and computer use. Baselines include Claude Opus 4.5, GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, and Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B-Thinking. Default evaluation uses temperature 1.0, top-p 0.95, and 256k context; some results are averaged over 64, 8, 5, 4, or 3 runs.

Limitations

  • The paper does not state a dedicated limitations section.
  • Evident from the evaluation settings: GPT-5.2-xhigh had an approximate 10% failure rate during vision evaluations, treated as incorrect, so reported scores may be conservative lower bounds; unstable GPT-5.2 API access caused some high-cost benchmarks such as WideSearch to be skipped.
  • Evident from the evaluation settings: computer-use models were evaluated in a one-shot setting due to resource constraints; several agentic benchmarks use single-run protocols; Terminal Bench 2.0 and SWE-Bench variants are evaluated under non-thinking mode because of context-management or framework incompatibilities.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2602.02276

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 21 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Kimi K2.5 achieves competitive performance with top-tier proprietary models on rigorous STEM benchmarks.

    “Reasoning and General Kimi K2.5 achieves competitive performance with top-tier proprietary models on rigorous STEM benchmarks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    On BrowseComp, K2.5 achieves 74.9% with Discard-all context management.

    “74.9% with Discard-all context management [14]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14]

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

  • Findingown data

    The vision ratio has minimal impact on final multimodal performance.

    “Surprisingly, we found that the vision ratio has minimal impact on final multimodal performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingreasoning

    K2.5 achieves a multimodal training efficiency of 90% relative to text-only training.

    “K2.5 seamlessly inherits the parallel strategy of K2, achieving a multimodal training efficiency of 90% relative to text-only training.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Kimi K2.5 achieves state-of-the-art results across various domains including coding, vision, reasoning, and agentic tasks.

    “Extensive evaluations show that Kimi K2.5 achieves state-of-the-art results across various domains including coding, vision, reasoning, and agentic tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 38
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 6
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 30

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On AIME 2025, K2.5 scores 96.1%, approaching GPT-5.2's perfect score while outperforming Claude Opus 4.5 (92.8%) and Gemini 3 Pro (95.0%).

    “On Math tasks, AIME 2025, K2.5 scores 96.1%, approaching GPT-5.2'sperfect score while outperforming Claude Opus 4.5 (92.8%) and Gemini 3 Pro (95.0%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On HLE without tools, K2.5 achieves an HLE-Full score of 30.1%, with 31.5% on the text subset and 21.3% on the image subset.

    “Notably, on HLE without the use of tools, K2.5 achieves an HLE-Full score of 30.1%, with component-wise scores of 31.5% on text subset and 21.3% on image subset.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    K2.5 achieves 76.8% on SWE-Bench Verified and 73.0% on SWE-Bench Multilingual, outperforming Gemini 3 Pro while remaining competitive with Claude Opus 4.5 and GPT-5.2.

    “It achieves 76.8% on SWE-Bench Verified and 73.0% on SWE-Bench Multilingual, outperforming Gemini 3 Pro while remaining competitive with Claude Opus 4.5 and GPT-5.2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Toggle decreases output tokens by 25∼30% on average with negligible impact on performance.

    “On average, Toggle decreases output tokens by 25∼30% with a negligible impact on performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    K2.5 scores 36.9% on SimpleQA Verified, 87.1% on MMLU-Pro, and 87.6% on GPQA.

    “Kimi K2.5 also exhibits remarkable knowledge and scientific reasoning capabilities, scoring 36.9% on SimpleQA Verified, 87.1% on MMLU-Pro and 87.6% on GPQA.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On LiveCodeBench v6, K2.5 reaches 85.0%, surpassing DeepSeek-V3.2 (83.3%) and Claude Opus 4.5 (82.2%).

    “On LiveCodeBench v6, Kimi K2.5 reaches 85.0%, surpassing DeepSeek-V3.2(83.3%) and Claude Opus 4.5 (82.2%), highlighting its robustness on live, continuously updated coding challenges.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    K2.5 scores 50.8% on TerminalBench 2.0, 63.5% on PaperBench, and 48.7% on SciCode.

    “On TerminalBench 2.0, PaperBench, and SciCode, it scores 50.8%, 63.5%, and 48.7% respectively, demonstrating stable competition-level performance in automated software engineering and problem solving across diverse domains.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    With tool-use enabled, K2.5's HLE-Full score rises to 50.2%, with 51.8% on text and 39.8% on image, significantly outperforming Gemini 3 Pro (45.8%) and GPT-5.2 (45.5%).

    “When tool-use is enabled, K2.5's HLE-Full score rises to 50.2%, with 51.8% (text) and 39.8% (image), significantly outperforming Gemini 3 Pro (45.8%) and GPT-5.2 (45.5%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    K2.5 scores 95.4% on HMMT 2025 and 81.8% on IMO-AnswerBench.

    “This high-level performance extends to the HMMT 2025 (95.4%) and IMO-AnswerBench (81.8%), demonstrating K2.5's superior reasoning depth.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    DEP achieves load-balance and decouples the optimization strategy of the vision encoder and the main backbone.

    “DEP not only achieves load-balance, but also decouples the optimization strategy of the vision encoder and the main backbone.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The vision encoder is small.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    K2.5 scores 75.6% on AdvancedIF and 61.0% on LongBench v2.

    “In addition to reasoning and knowledge, K2.5 shows strong instruction-following performance (75.6% on AdvancedIF) and competitive long-context abilities, achieving 61.0% on LongBench v2 compared to both proprietary and open-source models.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Zero-vision SFT is sufficient for activating vision capabilities while ensuring generalization across modalities.

    “The results show that zero-vision SFT is sufficient for activating vision capabilities while ensuring generalization across modalities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Pretrained VLMs do not naturally perform vision-based tool-calling.
    • Rests on an assumption: High-quality text SFT data are relatively abundant and diverse.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Robust visual capabilities can emerge from zero-vision SFT paired with vision RL, which further enhances general text abilities.

    “Motivated by the finding that robust visual capabilities can emerge from zero-vision SFT paired with vision RL-which further enhances general text abilities-we adopt a joint multimodal RL paradigm during Kimi K2.5's post-training.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Pretrained VLMs do not naturally perform vision-based tool-calling.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    K2.5's 74.9% on BrowseComp with Discard-all context management substantially outperforms Gemini 3 Pro's 37.8%.

    “Gemini 3 Pro (37.8%)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Figure 12 presents qualitative examples of Kimi K2.5 solving diverse visual reasoning tasks via tool-augmented reasoning.

    “Figure 12 presents qualitative examples of Kimi K2.5 solving diverse visual reasoning tasks via tool-augmented reasoning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingnone given

    At the same time, the level of parallelism during training also gradually increases.

    “At the same time, the level of parallelism during training also gradually increases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    K2.5's 74.9% on BrowseComp with Discard-all context management substantially outperforms Claude Opus 4.5's 37.0%.

    “Claude Opus 4.5 (37.0%)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The model demonstrates maze solving, pie chart analysis, and spot-the-difference tasks via tool-augmented reasoning.

    “The model demonstrates: (1) Maze Solving-processing binary image segmentation and implementing pathfinding algorithms (BFS) to navigate complex mazes; (2) Pie Chart Analysis-performing pixel-level color segmentation and geometric calculations to determine precise area proportions; and (3) Spot-the-Difference-employing computer vision techniques to detect pixel-level discrepancies between image pa”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    As shown in Figure 7, the proactive strategy outperforms Discard-all in both efficiency and accuracy on BrowseComp.

    “As shown in Figure 7, this proactive strategy outperforms Discard-all in both efficiency and accuracy on BrowseComp.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    K2.5 leads all evaluated models on DeepSearchQA, FinSearch-CompT2&T3, and Seal-0.

    “K2.5 leads all evaluated models”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    GPT-5.2-xhigh exhibited an approximate 10% failure rate during vision evaluations.

    “GPT-5.2-xhighexhibited an approximate 10% failure rate (i.e., no output generated despite three retry attempts) during vision evaluations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingnone given

    In the parallel-agent RL environment, training accuracy increases smoothly as training progresses.

    “In our parallel-agent reinforcement learning environment, the training accuracy increases smoothly as training progresses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingnone given

    The Kimi K2.5 pre-training text corpus comprises curated, high-quality data spanning four primary domains: Web Text, Code, Mathematics, and Knowledge.

    “The Kimi K2.5 pre-training text corpus comprises curated, high-quality data spanning four primary domains: Web Text, Code, Mathematics, and Knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingnone given

    Kimi K2.5 analyzed a complete playthrough of Black Myth: Wukong (24 hours of continuous gameplay across 32 videos at 1080p) using parallel visual agents.

    “Qualitative example of Kimi K2.5 analyzing a complete playthrough of Black Myth: Wukong (24 hours of continuous gameplay across 32 videos at 1080p) using parallel visual agents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingreasoning

    Early fusion maintains a healthier and more stable text performance curve throughout training than mid- or late-fusion.

    “In contrast, early fusion maintains a healthier and more stable text performance curve throughout training.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Kimi-VL's MoonViT natively processes images at their original resolutions, eliminating the need for complex sub-image splitting and splicing operations.

    “In Kimi-VL, we employ MoonViT to natively process images at their original resolutions, eliminating the need for complex sub-image splitting and splicing operations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    MoonViT-3D is initialized from SigLIP-SO-400M and incorporates the patch packing strategy from NaViT.

    “Initialized from SigLIP-SO-400M [77], MoonViT incorporates the patch packing strategy from NaViT [15], where single images are divided into patches, flattened, and sequentially concatenated into 1D sequences, thereby enabling efficient simultaneous training on images at varying resolutions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [77]

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

    • cites [15]

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

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Toggle functions as a stochastic alternating optimization for a bi-objective problem.

    “Notably, Toggle functions as a stochastic alternating optimization for a bi-objective problem.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Kimi K2 employs the token-efficient MuonClip optimizer with QK-Clip for training stability.

    “Kimi K2 employs the token-efficient MuonClip optimizer [30,34] with QK-Clip for training stability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [30]

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

    • cites [34]

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

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    Toggle is designed to reconcile reasoning capabilities with computational efficiency.

    “It is specifically designed to reconcile reasoning capabilities with computational efficiency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationnone given

    The first ViT alignment stage allows MoonViT-3D to primarily understand high-resolution images and videos.

    “This stage allows MoonViT-3D to primarily understand high-resolution images and videos.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Sharing parameters in MoonViT-3D maximizes knowledge generalization from static images to dynamic videos, achieving strong video understanding performance without specialized video modules.

    “While the extra temporal attention improves understanding on high-speed motions and visual effects, the sharing maximizes knowledge generalization from static images to dynamic videos, achieving strong video understanding performance (see in Tab. 4) without requiring specialized video modules or architectural bifurcation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Kimi K2 comprises 1.04 trillion total parameters with 32 billion activated.

    “The model comprises 1.04 trillion total parameters with 32 billion activated 6”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    These failures were treated as incorrect predictions, meaning that the reported scores may be conservative lower bounds of the model's true capability.

    “These failures were treated as incorrect predictions, meaning that the reported scores may be conservative lower bounds of the model's true capability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Test-time context truncation strategies such as Hide-Tool-Result, Summary, or Discard-all react to context overflow by compressing or discarding accumulated histories.

    “test-time context truncation strategies such as Hide-Tool-Result [2], Summary [71], or Discard-all [14], which react to context overflow by compressing or discarding accumulated histories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2]

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

    • cites [71]

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

    • cites [14]

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

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    All coding task results are averaged over 5 independent runs (Avg@5) to ensure stability across environment initialization and non-deterministic test case ordering.

    “All coding task results are averaged over 5 independent runs (Avg@5) to ensure stability across environment initialization and non-deterministic test case ordering.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    While effective at reducing token usage, these context truncation methods are inherently reactive and often sacrifice structural information or intermediate reasoning.

    “While effective at reducing token usage, these methods are inherently reactive and often sacrifice structural information or intermediate reasoning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    All data undergoes rigorous filtering, deduplication, and quality control to ensure high diversity and effectiveness.

    “All data undergoes rigorous filtering, deduplication, and quality control to ensure high diversity and effectiveness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Grounded in vision-text intelligence and agent swarms, Kimi K2.5 demonstrates strong performance on benchmarks and real-world tasks.

    “Grounded in vision-text intelligence and agent swarms, Kimi K2.5 demonstrates strong performance on benchmarks and real-world tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The model's performance on benchmarks generalizes to real-world tasks.

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Unless otherwise specified, no context management is applied to agentic evaluations; tasks exceeding the model's supported context window are directly counted as failures rather than truncated.

    “no context management is applied to agentic evaluations; tasks exceeding the model's supported context window are directly counted as failures rather than truncated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To account for the inherent stochasticity in search engine result rankings and dynamic web content availability, results for Seal-0 and WideSearch are averaged over 4 independent runs (Avg@4).

    “results for Seal-0 and WideSearch are averaged over 4 independent runs (Avg@4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    K2.5 demonstrates superior capacity for agentic deep research, information synthesis, and multi-step tool orchestration.

    “demonstrating superior capacity for agentic deep research, information synthesis, and multi-step tool orchestration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Agent Swarm operates as an active, structured context manager, achieving higher accuracy with substantially fewer critical steps than uniform context truncation.

    “Consequently, Agent Swarm operates as an active, structured context manager, achieving higher accuracy with substantially fewer critical steps than uniform context truncation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Because the authors were unable to consistently access a stable GPT-5.2 API, some benchmarks with high evaluation costs, such as WideSearch, were skipped.

    “because we were unable to consistently access a stable GPT-5.2API, we skipped some benchmarks with high evaluation costs, such as WideSearch.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The data loading infrastructure guarantees fully deterministic training through meticulous management of random seeds and worker states, ensuring that any training interruption can be resumed seamlessly.

    “Guarantees fully deterministic training through meticulous management of random seeds and worker states, ensuring that any training interruption can be resumed seamlessly”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    An agent swarm is a kind of proactive and intelligent context management enabled by multi-agent architecture.

    “an agent swarm is a kind of proactive and intelligent context management enabled by multi-agent architecture [5].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5]

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These results indicate that Agent Swarm effectively transforms sequential tool invocations into parallel operations, preventing the linear growth in completion time typically observed as task difficulty increases.

    “These results indicate that Agent Swarm effectively transforms sequential tool invocations into parallel operations, preventing the linear growth in completion time typically observed as task difficulty increases.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    For WebArena, errors in the evaluation scripts were manually corrected and GPT-4o was employed as the judge model for the fuzzy_match function.

    “we manually corrected errors in the evaluation scripts and employed GPT-4o as the judge model for the fuzzy_match function.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    By unifying language and vision across pre-training and reinforcement learning, the model achieves strong cross-modal alignment and visual-text reasoning.

    “By unifying language and vision across pre-training and reinforcement learning, the model achieves strong cross-modal alignment and visual-text reasoning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These examples highlight the model's capability to decompose complex visual problems into executable code, iteratively refine strategies based on intermediate results, and synthesize precise answers through quantitative visual analysis.

    “These examples highlight the model's capability to decompose complex visual problems into executable code, iteratively refine strategies based on intermediate results, and synthesize precise answers through quantitative visual analysis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Results are reported using GPT5.2-high, which consistently adheres to the expected output format.

    “we report results using GPT5.2-high, which consistently adheres to the expected output format.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The authors adhere strictly to the official evaluation protocol for MMMU-Pro: input order is preserved for all modalities, with images prepended to text sequences as specified in the benchmark guidelines.

    “We adhere strictly to the official evaluation protocol: input order is preserved for all modalities, with images prepended to text sequences as specified in the benchmark guidelines.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    For high-complexity reasoning benchmarks, a maximum completion budget of 96k tokens was enforced to ensure sufficient reasoning depth.

    “we enforce a maximum completion budget of 96k tokens to ensure sufficient reasoning depth.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Due to resource constraints, all models are evaluated in a one-shot setting.

    “Due to resource constraints, all models are evaluated in a one-shot setting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    By scaling vision RL FLOPs, performance continues to improve, demonstrating that zero-vision activation paired with long-running RL is sufficient for acquiring robust visual capabilities.

    “By scaling vision RL FLOPs, the performance continues to improve, demonstrating that zero-vision activation paired with long-running RL is sufficient for acquiring robust visual capabilities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationown data

    These consistent improvements across benchmarks validate that Agent Swarm effectively converts computational parallelism into qualitative capability gains, particularly for problems requiring broad exploration, multi-source verification, or simultaneous handling of independent sub-tasks.

    “These consistent improvements across benchmarks validate that Agent Swarm effectively converts computational parallelism into qualitative capability gains”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The agent swarm's performance gains are attributable to multi-agent orchestration rather than other factors such as increased compute or different step limits.

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To reduce variance arising from stochastic reasoning paths, results on AIME 2025 and HMMT 2025 (Feb) are averaged over 64 independent runs (Avg@64), while GPQA-Diamond is averaged over 8 runs (Avg@8).

    “results on AIME 2025 and HMMT 2025 (Feb) are averaged over 64 independent runs (Avg@64), while GPQA-Diamond is averaged over 8 runs (Avg@8).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    For a fair comparison, all input contexts were standardized to approximately 128k tokens using the same truncation strategy as in [9].

    “we standardize all input contexts to approximately 128k tokens using the same truncation strategy as in [9].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9]

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

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    To ensure fair comparison, Claude Opus 4.5 is evaluated solely with computer-use tools (excluding browser tools), a departure from the System Card configuration.

    “Claude Opus 4.5 is evaluated solely with computer-use tools (excluding browser tools), a departure from the System Card configuration [6].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6]

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Agent Swarm enables concurrent execution of heterogeneous sub-tasks, reducing inference latency while improving performance on complex agentic workloads.

    “Agent Swarm enables concurrent execution of heterogeneous sub-tasks, reducing inference latency while improving performance on complex agentic workloads.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The framework records log probabilities for all inference engine outputs to perform train-inference mismatch correction, ensuring stable RL training.

    “We also record log probabilities for all inference engine outputs to perform train-inference mismatch correction, ensuring stable RL training.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    Most of the Kimi K2.5 data processing pipelines follow the methodologies outlined in Kimi K2.

    “Most data processing pipelines follow the methodologies outlined in Kimi K2 [53].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [53]

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

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    For each of the four domains, the authors performed rigorous correctness and quality validation and designed targeted data experiments to ensure the curated dataset achieved both high diversity and effectiveness.

    “For each domain, we performed rigorous correctness and quality validation and designed targeted data experiments to ensure the curated dataset achieved both high diversity and effectiveness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Under fixed token budgets, moderate vision ratios combined with early fusion yield superior convergence properties and more robust bi-modal competence, supporting native multimodal pre-training.

    “Collectively, these findings reinforce our proposal of native multimodal pre-training: moderate vision ratios combined with early fusion yield superior convergence properties and more robust bi-modal competence under fixed token budgets.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Early exposure to vision prevents the representation collapse observed in late fusion and facilitates smoother gradient landscapes for both modalities.

    “This suggests that early exposure not only prevents the representation collapse observed in late fusion but also facilitates smoother gradient landscapes for both modalities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
65 of 65

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Pretrained VLMs do not naturally perform vision-based tool-calling.

    “Pretrained VLMs do not naturally perform vision-based tool-calling, which poses a cold-start problem for multimodal RL.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    High-quality text SFT data are relatively abundant and diverse.

    “An observation is that high-quality text SFT data are relatively abundant and diverse.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In a multi-agent setting, outcome-based rewards are inherently sparse and noisy.

    “In this multi-agent setting, outcome-based rewards are inherently sparse and noisy; a correct final answer does not guarantee flawless subagent execution, just as a failure does not imply universal subagent error.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The vision encoder is small.

    “Because the vision encoder is small, we replicate it on all GPUs regardless of other parallelism strategies.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The benchmarks used (BrowseComp, WideSearch, DeepSearchQA, FinSearch-CompT2&T3, Seal-0, etc.) are valid and representative measures of the claimed agentic search, browsing, and deep research capabilities.

    “we select three representative benchmarks that collectively cover deep reasoning, large-scale retrieval, and real-world complexity”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The In-house Swarm Bench is representative of real-world, high-complexity conditions.

    “An internally developed Swarm benchmark, designed to evaluate the agent swarm performance under real-world, high-complexity conditions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The reported scores for proprietary baselines are comparable to the paper's evaluations despite differences in evaluation settings.

    “For baseline models, we report results under their respective high-performance reasoning configurations”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The agent swarm's performance gains are attributable to multi-agent orchestration rather than other factors such as increased compute or different step limits.

    “These consistent improvements across benchmarks validate that Agent Swarm effectively converts computational parallelism into qualitative capability gains”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The model's performance on benchmarks generalizes to real-world tasks.

    “Kimi K2.5 demonstrates strong performance on benchmarks and real-world tasks.”
9 of 9

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 resulting trajectories are rigorously filtered (e.g., using LLM-as-a-judge) to ensure quality, and are further supplemented with real-world execution sandboxes.

    “The resulting trajectories are then rigorously filtered (e.g., using LLM-as-a-judge) to ensure quality, and are further supplemented with real-world execution sandboxes [78,188].”

    From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [188]

    Section 4.4.1 (page unavailable) says the data-generation pipeline uses multi-stage verification and produces reasoning trajectories. Appendix D (page unavailable) describes a Judge module and sandbox-equipped agent tasks. The copy does not establish that an LLM-as-a-judge filters those trajectories or that the trajectories are supplemented with real-world execution sandboxes. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Kimi-K2.5 introduces the agent swarm approach, using parallel-agent RL to decompose complex tasks among multiple sub-agents, optimizing their orchestration toward a global, verifiable objective.

    “It also introduces the agent swarm approach, using parallel-agent RL to decompose complex tasks among multiple sub-agents, optimizing their orchestration toward a global, verifiable objective.”

    From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [188]

    Section 3, “Agent Swarm” (page unavailable), says K2.5 introduces Agent Swarm and Parallel Agent Reinforcement Learning to learn task decomposition, subagent scheduling, and parallelization. “PARL Reward” says the orchestrator ultimately optimizes a task-level outcome reward, but it does not establish that this objective is always verifiable; “Reward Function” distinguishes tasks with verifiable solutions from general-purpose tasks evaluated by reward models. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Agent swarms dynamically spawn and coordinate large numbers of sub-agents in parallel to execute subtasks, enabling significant reductions in runtime and increased throughput for complex workflows like multi-step reasoning and data synthesis.

    “Emerging practical systems such as agent swarms [188] extend these ideas by dynamically spawning and coordinating large numbers of sub-agents in parallel to execute subtasks, enabling significant reductions in runtime and increased throughput for complex workflows like multi-step reasoning and data synthesis.”

    From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [188]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Large-scale pre-training demands vast datasets spanning trillions of tokens for cutting-edge models, a volume far exceeding the data required for human learning from textual materials.

    “Although this method has proven effective and generalizable, its learning efficiency is fundamentally limited: it demands vast datasets spanning trillions of tokens for cutting-edge models [57,78,188], a volume far exceeding the data required for human learning from textual materials.”

    From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [188]

    Section 4.3 (Pre-training Pipeline; page not provided) says Kimi K2.5 processes approximately 15 trillion tokens, supporting the cited example of trillion-token pre-training. The paper does not compare that volume with the textual data humans need to learn, so it does not support the full quoted claim. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Kimi-K2.5 builds a unified multimodal agentic RL framework and employs outcome- and trajectory-based evaluators to deliver scalable feedback for multimodal tool-using behaviors.

    “Similarly, Kimi-K2.5 [188] builds a unified multimodal agentic RL framework and employs outcome- and trajectory-based evaluators to deliver scalable feedback for multimodal tool-using behaviors.”

    From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [188]

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.

  • In-house Swarm gain is not the largest absolute gain

    Minor

    The reported In-house Swarm Bench gain is 16.7 percentage points, but the paper reports a larger 17.8-point gain on BrowseComp. Calling the In-house gain the most pronounced is inconsistent with those absolute gains.

  • HMMT benchmark points to an unrelated reference

    Minor

    The benchmark list cites reference [58] for HMMT 2025, but reference [58] is titled "Attention is All you Need," not an HMMT source.

2 of 2

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Ashish Vaswani et al. "Attention is All you Need". In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
  2. Ed. by I. Guyon et al. Vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. URL: https://proceedings.neurips. cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Paper.pdf.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kimi Team, Bai, T., Bai, Y., Bao, Y., Cai, S. H., Cao, Y., Chai, Z., Charles, Y., Che, H. S., Chen, C., Chen, G., Chen, H., Chen, J., Chen, J., Chen, J., Chen, K., Chen, L., Chen, R., Chen, X., Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Chen, Z., Cheng, D., Cheng, Y., Chu, M., Cui, J., Deng, J., Diao, M., Ding, H., Dong, M., Dong, M., Dong, Y., Dong, Y., Du, A., Du, C., Du, D., Du, L., Du, Y., Fan, Y., Fang, S., Feng, Q., Feng, Y., Fu, G., Fu, K., Gao, H., Gao, T., Ge, Y., Geng, S., Gong, C., Gong, X., Gongque, Z., Gu, Q., Gu, X., Gu, Y., Guan, L., Guan, S., Guo, Y., Hao, X., He, D., He, T., He, W., He, W., He, Y., He, Y., Hong, C., Hu, H., Hu, J., Hu, Y., Hu, Z., Huang, K., Huang, R., Huang, W., Huang, Z., Jia, C., Jiang, T., Jiang, Z., Jin, X., Jing, Y., Lai, G., Li, A., Li, C., Li, C., Li, F., Li, G., Li, G., Li, H., Li, H., Li, J., Li, J., Li, J., Li, L., Li, M., Li, W., Li, W., Li, X., Li, X., Li, Y., Li, Y., Li, Y., Li, Y., Li, Z., Li, Z., Li, Z., Liao, W., Lin, J., Lin, X., Lin, Y., Lin, Z., Lin, Z., Liu, C., Liu, C., Liu, H., Liu, L., Liu, S., Liu, S., Liu, S., Liu, T., Liu, T., Liu, W., Liu, X., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, Z., Liu, Z., Lu, E., Lu, H., Lu, Z., Luo, G., Luo, J., Luo, T., Luo, Y., Ma, L., Mao, S., Mei, Y., Men, X., Meng, F., Meng, Z., Miao, Y., Ni, M., Ouyang, K., Pan, S., Pang, B., Qian, Y., Qin, R., Qin, Z., Qiu, J., Qu, B., Shang, Z., Shao, Y., Shen, T., Shen, Z., Shi, J., Shi, L., Shi, S., Song, F., Song, P., Song, T., Song, X., Su, H., Su, J., Su, Z., Sui, L., Sun, J., Sun, J., Sun, T., Sung, F., Tai, Y., Tang, C., Tang, H., Tang, X., Tang, Z., Tao, J., Teng, S., Tian, C., Tian, P., Wang, B., Wang, C., Wang, C., Wang, C., Wang, D., Wang, D., Wang, D., Wang, F., Wang, H., Wang, H., Wang, H., Wang, H., Wang, H., Wang, H., Wang, J., Wang, J., Wang, J., Wang, K., Wang, L., Wang, Q., Wang, S., Wang, S., Wang, S., Wang, W., Wang, X., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, Z., Wang, Z., Wang, Z., Wang, Z., Wang, Z., Wang, Z., Wang, Z., Wei, C., Wei, M., Wen, C., Wen, Z., Wu, C., Wu, H., Wu, J., Wu, R., Wu, W., Wu, Y., Wu, Y., Wu, Y., Wu, Z., Xiao, C., Xie, J., Xie, X., Xie, Y., Xing, B., Xu, B., Xu, J., Xu, J., Xu, J., Xu, L. H., Xu, L., Xu, S., Xu, W., Xu, X., Xu, X., Xu, Y., Xu, Y., Xu, Y., Xu, Z., Xu, Z., Yan, J., Yan, Y., Yang, G., Yang, H., Yang, J., Yang, K., Yang, N., Yang, X., Yang, X., Yang, X., Yang, Y., Yang, Y., Yang, Y., Yang, Z., Yang, Z., Yang, Z., Yao, H., Ye, D., Ye, H., Ye, W., Ye, Z., Yebo, P., Yin, B., Yu, C., Yu, L., Yu, T., Yu, T., Yuan, E., Yuan, M., Yuan, X., Yue, Y., Zeng, W., Zha, D., Zhan, H., Zhang, D., Zhang, H., Zhang, J., Zhang, P., Zhang, Q., Zhang, R., Zhang, X., Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhao, C., Zhao, F., Zhao, J., Zhao, S., Zhao, X., Zhao, X., Zhao, Y., Zhao, Z., Zheng, H., Zheng, R., Zheng, S., Zheng, T., Zhong, J., Zhong, L., Zhong, W., Zhou, M., Zhou, R., Zhou, X., Zhou, Z., Zhu, J., Zhu, L., Zhu, X., Zhu, Y., Zhu, Z., Zhuang, J., Zhuang, W., Zou, Y., & Zu, X.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2602.02276
arXiv
2602.02276
OpenAlex
W7127380112
Semantic Scholar
e1c32d718ad38e17d66b1ffb91744a169b592be7
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2
Type
posted content
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
agent swarms, task decomposition, open-source large language models, visual reasoning

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