← Back to all development cases
This case was judged by an anonymized AI reviewer and has not been independently reviewed by people; inspect the draft, cards, and both outputs to assess it.
AutocompleteWith cards better121 / 280 · beu-e84bdb1b43dab10b

DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report

Computer science · 2412.19437v1

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we compare writing with and without cards?

At the same writing position, the same model produces one first result with cards and one without. All 280 pairs enter the overall anonymized review, which assesses whether a decision not to continue fits the draft.

Overall: 138 with-card wins, 26 ties, 107 no-card wins, 5 pairs where neither was usable, and 4 inconclusive judgments. Both sides wrote text in 218 pairs; 48 had a deliberate stop and 14 included an invalid output.

SAME DRAFT · WITH OR WITHOUT CARDS

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED VERSIONS

SHARED BY BOTH

Draft, writing task, and generation model

A · With cards

Relevant literature cards supplied

B · Without cards

No literature cards supplied

Generation model

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Anonymized AI judge

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Review again with the answer order swapped

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The AI judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received cards.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are positions and cards selected?

We selected 40 writing positions in each of seven fields, for 280 comparisons. The position and relevant literature cards were set before each comparison, so both versions began from the same draft.

The main result retains every frozen position, including places where cards might not add a useful next move. This avoids selecting cases based on their outputs, but 49% describes the whole cohort, not a win rate where evidence clearly had an opportunity to help. This cohort did not record that opportunity label for each position before generation, so those two groups cannot yet be separated reliably.

CARD USE · 140/280

Reported card use in continuations with text

The model reports whether a card affected its continuation. In 140 of 280 tests it produced continuation text and reported card use. The previous count of 150 included 10 cases without continuation text and has been corrected.

COMPARISON · 70 / 7 / 30

Which written version was better?

Of the 107 reported-use cases where both versions produced text, the blinded AI judge preferred the with-card version 70 times, found 7 about the same, and preferred the without-card version 30 times.

How are the two table percentages calculated?

ADOPTION COVERAGE

140reported use with text
÷
280all positions
=
50%

WITH-CARD VERSION PREFERRED

70with cards better
÷
107comparable tests
=
65%

The percentages use different groups: 50% counts continuations with text reporting card use among all 280 tests; 65% covers the 107 such cases with text on both sides. The generating model reports card use, while an anonymized AI judge compares writing quality.

Card use is self-reported by the generator. The anonymized AI judge sees the draft and source snippets, so source-aware preference remains possible; there was no independent human review. The overall result describes these 280 frozen positions, not a win probability for any writing task.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report

Introduction / methods

he construction of training data, hyper-parameter settings, long- context extension techniques, the associated evaluations, as well as some discussions (Section 4). Thereafter, we discuss our efforts on post-training, which include Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Reinforcement Learning (RL), the corresponding evaluations, and discussions (Section 5). Lastly, we conclude this work, discuss existing limitations of DeepSeek-V3, and propose potential directions for future research (Section 6). 2. Architecture We first introduce the basic architecture of DeepSeek-V3, featured by Multi-head Latent Atten- tion (MLA) (DeepSeek-AI, 2024c) for efficient inference and DeepSeekMoE (Dai et al., 2024) for economical training. Then, we present a Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) training objective, which we have observed to enhance the overall performance on evaluation benchmarks. For other minor details not explicitly mentioned, DeepSeek-V3 adheres to the settings of DeepSeek- V2 (DeepSeek-AI, 2024c). 2.1. Basic Architecture The basic architecture of DeepSeek-V3 is still within the Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) framework. For efficient inference and economical training, DeepSeek-V3 also adopts MLA

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionOverall AI review: With cards better

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Read overall AI review rationale

A = with cards · B = without cards

Both outputs attempt to complete the sentence describing what MLA and DeepSeekMoE do. Output A provides specific, accurate functional descriptions: MLA compresses the KV cache into a latent vector (confirmed by DeepSeek-V2 source snippet: 'MLA guarantees efficient inference through significantly compressing the Key-Value (KV) cache into a latent vector'), and DeepSeekMoE activates only a subset of experts per token (consistent with MoE architecture). These descriptions fit the draft's flow of introducing architectural components and their purposes. Output B is vaguer, merely stating these were 'validated in DeepSeek-V2'—while true, it adds less substantive information about what these components actually do, making it less useful at this expository position where the reader needs to understand the architecture. Output A's specifics are supported by the sources and match the draft's informative tone. Output A also better parallels the earlier parenthetical '(DeepSeek-AI, 2024c)' citation structure by providing content rather than redundant validation claims.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Preferred by blind review

and DeepSeekMoE, which compress the Key-Value cache into a latent vector and activate only a subset of experts per token, respectively.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · DeepSeek-V2: A Strong, Economical, and Efficient Mixture-of-Experts Language Model

We present DeepSeek-V2, a strong Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language model characterized by economical training and efficient inference. It comprises 236B total parameters, of which 21B are activated for each token, and supports a context length of 128K tokens. DeepSeek-V2 adopts innovative architectu…

Read full passage excerpt

We present DeepSeek-V2, a strong Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language model characterized by economical training and efficient inference. It comprises 236B total parameters, of which 21B are activated for each token, and supports a context length of 128K tokens. DeepSeek-V2 adopts innovative architectures including Multi-head Latent Attention (MLA) and DeepSeekMoE. MLA guarantees efficient inference through significantly compressing the Key-Value (KV) cache into a latent vector, while DeepSeekMoE enables training strong models at an economical cost through sparse computation. Compared with DeepSeek 67B, DeepSeek-V2 achieves significantly stronger performance, and meanwhile saves 42.5% of training costs, reduces the KV cache by 93.3%, and boosts the maximum generation throughput to 5.76 times. We pretrain DeepSeek-V2 on a high-quality and multi-source corpus consisting of 8.1T tokens, and further perform Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) to fully unlock its poten …

Card 2 · Efficient Expert Pruning for Sparse Mixture-of-Experts Language Models: Enhancing Performance and Reducing Inference Costs

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has led to architectures with billions to trillions of parameters, posing significant deployment challenges due to their substantial demands on memory, processing power, and energy consumption. Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (SMoE) architectures have…

Read full passage excerpt

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has led to architectures with billions to trillions of parameters, posing significant deployment challenges due to their substantial demands on memory, processing power, and energy consumption. Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (SMoE) architectures have emerged as a solution, activating only a subset of parameters per token, thereby achieving faster inference while maintaining performance. However, SMoE models still face limitations in broader deployment due to their large parameter counts and significant GPU memory requirements. In this work, we introduce a gradient-free evolutionary strategy named EEP (Efficient Expert P}runing) to enhance the pruning of experts in SMoE models. EEP relies solely on model inference (i.e., no gradient computation) and achieves greater sparsity while maintaining or even improving performance on downstream tasks. EEP can be used to reduce both the total number of experts (thus saving GPU memory) and the numbe …

Card 3 · Skywork-MoE: A Deep Dive into Training Techniques for Mixture-of-Experts Language Models

In this technical report, we introduce the training methodologies implemented in the development of Skywork-MoE, a high-performance mixture-of-experts (MoE) large language model (LLM) with 146 billion parameters and 16 experts. It is initialized from the pre-existing dense checkpoints of our Skywork…

Read full passage excerpt

In this technical report, we introduce the training methodologies implemented in the development of Skywork-MoE, a high-performance mixture-of-experts (MoE) large language model (LLM) with 146 billion parameters and 16 experts. It is initialized from the pre-existing dense checkpoints of our Skywork-13B model. We explore the comparative effectiveness of upcycling versus training from scratch initializations. Our findings suggest that the choice between these two approaches should consider both the performance of the existing dense checkpoints and the MoE training budget. We highlight two innovative techniques: gating logit normalization, which improves expert diversification, and adaptive auxiliary loss coefficients, allowing for layer-specific adjustment of auxiliary loss coefficients. Our experimental results validate the effectiveness of these methods. Leveraging these techniques and insights, we trained our upcycled Skywork-MoE on a condensed subset of our SkyPile corpus. The evalu …

Card 4 · OpenMoE: An Early Effort on Open Mixture-of-Experts Language Models

To help the open-source community have a better understanding of Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) based large language models (LLMs), we train and release OpenMoE, a series of fully open-sourced and reproducible decoder-only MoE LLMs, ranging from 650M to 34B parameters and trained on up to over 1T tokens.…

Read full passage excerpt

To help the open-source community have a better understanding of Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) based large language models (LLMs), we train and release OpenMoE, a series of fully open-sourced and reproducible decoder-only MoE LLMs, ranging from 650M to 34B parameters and trained on up to over 1T tokens. Our investigation confirms that MoE-based LLMs can offer a more favorable cost-effectiveness trade-off than dense LLMs, highlighting the potential effectiveness for future LLM development. One more important contribution of this study is an in-depth analysis of the routing mechanisms within our OpenMoE models, leading to three significant findings: Context-Independent Specialization, Early Routing Learning, and Drop-towards-the-End. We discovered that routing decisions in MoE models are predominantly based on token IDs, with minimal context relevance. The token-to-expert assignments are determined early in the pre-training phase and remain largely unchanged. This imperfect routing can result …

Card 5 · OLMoE: Open Mixture-of-Experts Language Models

We introduce OLMoE, a fully open, state-of-the-art language model leveraging sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE). OLMoE-1B-7B has 7 billion (B) parameters but uses only 1B per input token. We pretrain it on 5 trillion tokens and further adapt it to create OLMoE-1B-7B-Instruct. Our models outperform all…

Read full passage excerpt

We introduce OLMoE, a fully open, state-of-the-art language model leveraging sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE). OLMoE-1B-7B has 7 billion (B) parameters but uses only 1B per input token. We pretrain it on 5 trillion tokens and further adapt it to create OLMoE-1B-7B-Instruct. Our models outperform all available models with similar active parameters, even surpassing larger ones like Llama2-13B-Chat and DeepSeekMoE-16B. We present various experiments on MoE training, analyze routing in our model showing high specialization, and open-source all aspects of our work: model weights, training data, code, and logs.

Model-reported card use

Card 1 · fact

Affected output: and DeepSeekMoE, which compress the Key-Value cache into a latent vector and activate only a subset of experts per token, respectively.

Model explanation: The row supplied the specific mechanisms of MLA (KV cache compression into a latent vector) and DeepSeekMoE (sparse computation) that the draft's sentence was left to complete.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

and DeepSeekMoE, which have been validated in DeepSeek-V2.

Earlier card-use comparison

The earlier diagnostic compared only cases with reported card use and text on both sides; its scope differs from the overall AI review above.

The blinded model review preferred the no-Evidence version. Its original rationale appears below.

Read the original model judgment

Output A contains an unsupportedClaim: it states that DeepSeekMoE 'compress the Key-Value cache into a latent vector,' but this describes MLA's function, not DeepSeekMoE's. The sources clearly attribute KV cache compression to MLA ('MLA guarantees efficient inference through significantly compressing the Key-Value (KV) cache into a latent vector'), while DeepSeekMoE 'enables training strong models at an economical cost through sparse computation.' Output A incorrectly assigns MLA's mechanism to DeepSeekMoE. Output B is simpler but correctly states that both MLA and DeepSeekMoE 'have been validated in DeepSeek-V2,' which is directly supported by the draft's statement that 'DeepSeek-V3 adheres to the settings of DeepSeek-V2' and the source describing DeepSeek-V2's adoption of both architectures. While Output A's unsupported claim doesn't make it completely unusable (the sentence is structurally coherent), it contains a material factual error that misrepresents the architecture. Output B is fully grounded and preserves the argument without inventing unsupported specifics.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.