GitLab

I ran a fast experiment investigating how DeepSeek-R1 carries out on agentic jobs, despite not supporting tool use natively, and equipifieds.com I was rather amazed by preliminary results. This experiment runs DeepSeek-R1 in a single-agent setup, where the model not just prepares the actions however likewise develops the actions as executable Python code. On a subset1 of the GAIA recognition split, DeepSeek-R1 exceeds Claude 3.5 Sonnet by 12.5% outright, from 53.1% to 65.6% correct, and other designs by an even bigger margin:

The experiment followed model use guidelines from the DeepSeek-R1 paper and the design card: Don't utilize few-shot examples, avoid including a system prompt, freechat.mytakeonit.org and valetinowiki.racing set the temperature level to 0.5 - 0.7 (0.6 was utilized). You can discover additional evaluation details here.

Approach

DeepSeek-R1's strong coding capabilities allow it to function as an agent without being clearly trained for tool usage. By enabling the design to produce actions as Python code, it can flexibly interact with environments through code execution.

Tools are carried out as Python code that is consisted of straight in the timely. This can be a simple function meaning or a module of a larger plan - any legitimate Python code. The model then produces code actions that call these tools.

Arise from carrying out these actions feed back to the model as follow-up messages, driving the next actions up until a final response is reached. The representative structure is a simple iterative coding loop that mediates the conversation between the design and its environment.

Conversations

DeepSeek-R1 is used as chat model in my experiment, where the design autonomously pulls extra context from its environment by using tools e.g. by utilizing a search engine or forum.pinoo.com.tr bring data from websites. This drives the discussion with the environment that continues up until a final response is reached.

In contrast, o1 models are understood to carry out badly when used as chat models i.e. they don't attempt to pull context throughout a discussion. According to the linked article, o1 designs carry out best when they have the full context available, with clear instructions on what to do with it.

Initially, I also attempted a complete context in a single prompt method at each step (with outcomes from previous steps consisted of), but this led to significantly lower scores on the GAIA subset. Switching to the conversational approach explained above, I was able to reach the reported 65.6% performance.

This raises an interesting question about the claim that o1 isn't a chat model - maybe this observation was more pertinent to older o1 models that did not have tool use abilities? After all, ai-db.science isn't tool use support an important system for enabling designs to pull additional context from their environment? This conversational method certainly appears reliable for DeepSeek-R1, though I still require to carry out comparable experiments with o1 models.

Generalization

Although DeepSeek-R1 was mainly trained with RL on math and coding jobs, it is remarkable that generalization to agentic jobs with tool usage by means of code actions works so well. This ability to generalize to agentic tasks reminds of recent research by DeepMind that reveals that RL generalizes whereas SFT remembers, although generalization to tool use wasn't investigated because work.

Despite its ability to generalize to tool use, DeepSeek-R1 often produces really long thinking traces at each step, compared to other designs in my experiments, restricting the usefulness of this model in a single-agent setup. Even simpler jobs sometimes take a long time to finish. Further RL on agentic tool usage, setiathome.berkeley.edu be it by means of code actions or not, could be one option to improve efficiency.

Underthinking

I likewise observed the underthinking phenomon with DeepSeek-R1. This is when a reasoning model often switches between various thinking ideas without adequately checking out promising paths to reach an appropriate service. This was a significant factor utahsyardsale.com for extremely long thinking traces produced by DeepSeek-R1. This can be seen in the taped traces that are available for download.

Future experiments

Another common application of thinking designs is to use them for planning just, while using other designs for creating code actions. This might be a prospective new feature of freeact, if this separation of functions proves helpful for more complex jobs.

I'm also curious about how reasoning models that already support tool usage (like o1, o3, ...) carry out in a single-agent setup, with and without creating code actions. Recent like OpenAI's Deep Research or Hugging Face's open-source Deep Research, which likewise utilizes code actions, look interesting.