Prediction

{
  "id": "43wae1qj8xrmc0cpz6gvj7c4hr",
  "model": "nvidia/pdf-to-podcast",
  "version": "ac99971270ae7afb78f5ebedd2cc89d4177cfe2068b3a40f02c6b5259aa1c63c",
  "input": {
    "duration_minutes": 5,
    "guest_name": "Bella",
    "guest_voice": "Wise_Woman",
    "host_name": "Adam",
    "host_voice": "Patient_Man",
    "monologue": false,
    "pdf": "https://replicate.delivery/pbxt/N3SR4T7rDV9e6GoIixducuK5cyrFSCkZyKw7yPSOazEHYv7d/2505.00024v2.pdf",
    "podcast_topic": ""
  },
  "logs": "Processing PDF 1/1: tmp0n8ful3j2505.00024v2.pdf\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/cuuupid/markitdown\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/anthropic/claude-3.7-sonnet\n<<< PDF summary >>>\n# Summary of Nemotron-Research-Tool-N1 Research\nThis paper introduces Nemotron-Research-Tool-N1 (Tool-N1), a series of language models designed to enhance tool-calling capabilities through reinforcement learning (RL) rather than traditional supervised fine-tuning (SFT). Unlike previous approaches that rely on distilled reasoning trajectories from stronger models, Tool-N1 is trained using a binary RL reward system that evaluates only the format validity and functional correctness of tool invocations, without dictating how the model should reason.\nThe researchers discovered that this lightweight supervision approach allows the model to develop independent reasoning strategies without relying on annotated trajectories. Their experiments demonstrate that Tool-N1-7B/14B models outperform GPT-4o on several major benchmarks. The study also conducted a systematic comparison between SFT, RL, and combined SFT-then-RL pipelines using 5,518 distilled reasoning trajectories, finding that pure RL can sometimes perform better than the widely adopted SFT-then-RL paradigm.\nThe research is significant because it addresses a limitation in current tool-calling models, which often exhibit \"imitative reasoning\" that limits generalization. By using rule-based rewards that verify only the correctness of tool calls rather than enforcing specific reasoning paths, Tool-N1 appears to develop more flexible problem-solving capabilities. This approach offers a promising direction for developing LLMs that can effectively leverage external tools while maintaining authentic reasoning abilities.# Summary of Nemotron-Research-Tool-N1\nThe document presents Nemotron-Research-Tool-N1 (Tool-N1), a new approach to enhancing language models' tool-calling abilities using rule-based reinforcement learning (RL). Unlike traditional methods that rely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with distilled trajectories from stronger models, Tool-N1 employs a binary RL reward system that evaluates only the format validity and functional correctness of tool invocations, without requiring annotated reasoning steps. This lightweight supervision enables the model to develop independent reasoning strategies.\nExperimental results demonstrate that Tool-N1-7B/14B models outperform GPT-4o on several major benchmarks. The researchers conducted a systematic comparison of different training strategies (SFT, RL, and SFT-then-RL) using 5,518 distilled reasoning trajectories and discovered that pure RL can sometimes outperform the widely adopted SFT-then-RL approach for tool-calling models.\nThe research addresses limitations in current tool-calling approaches where models often exhibit \"pseudo reasoning\" - mimicking surface-level patterns without truly internalizing decision-making processes. By using rule-based RL that rewards correctness of final outputs rather than specific reasoning paths, Tool-N1 allows models to develop more genuine reasoning capabilities. This approach offers greater flexibility than SFT's strict output matching, enabling recognition of semantically equivalent tool calls that might be expressed differently.\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/anthropic/claude-3.7-sonnet\n<<< Podcast outline >>>\n# Podcast Outline: \"AI Breakthroughs\" - Episode on Nemotron-Research-Tool-N1\n**Duration:** Approximately 5 minutes\n## Segment 1: Introduction (30 seconds)\n- **Adam:** Welcomes listeners to the show and introduces today's topic: innovative approaches to tool-calling in AI language models\n- **Adam:** Introduces guest Bella, an AI researcher specializing in language model capabilities\n- **Adam:** Frames the conversation around the recent Nemotron-Research-Tool-N1 research\n## Segment 2: The Tool-Calling Challenge (45 seconds)\n- **Bella:** Explains what tool-calling is and why it's important for AI capabilities\n- **Bella:** Outlines the traditional approach using supervised fine-tuning (SFT)\n- **Adam:** Asks about limitations of conventional approaches\n- **Bella:** Introduces the concept of \"imitative reasoning\" or \"pseudo reasoning\" as a key limitation\n## Segment 3: The Tool-N1 Innovation (1 minute)\n- **Adam:** Asks what makes Tool-N1 different from previous approaches\n- **Bella:** Explains the rule-based reinforcement learning approach with binary rewards\n- **Bella:** Highlights that Tool-N1 doesn't require annotated reasoning trajectories\n- **Adam:** Clarifies how this differs from the standard SFT-then-RL pipeline\n## Segment 4: Performance and Benchmarks (45 seconds)\n- **Adam:** Asks how Tool-N1 performs compared to existing models\n- **Bella:** Discusses how Tool-N1-7B/14B outperforms GPT-4o on several benchmarks\n- **Bella:** Emphasizes that smaller models can achieve competitive performance\n- **Adam:** Questions if this indicates a more efficient approach to AI development\n## Segment 5: The Training Methodology Comparison (1 minute)\n- **Adam:** Asks about the systematic comparison between training methods\n- **Bella:** Explains the experimental setup comparing SFT, RL, and SFT-then-RL\n- **Bella:** Highlights the surprising finding that pure RL sometimes outperforms combined approaches\n- **Adam:** Explores why this challenges conventional wisdom in the field\n## Segment 6: Implications for AI Reasoning (45 seconds)\n- **Adam:** Questions how this affects our understanding of AI reasoning capabilities\n- **Bella:** Discusses how Tool-N1's approach allows for more genuine reasoning development\n- **Bella:** Explains the flexibility of the approach in recognizing semantically equivalent solutions\n- **Adam:** Asks about future implications for AI development\n## Segment 7: Conclusion and Sign-off (15 seconds)\n- **Adam:** Summarizes key takeaways about Tool-N1's approach and significance\n- **Adam:** Thanks Bella for her insights\n- **Adam:** Invites listeners to tune in for future episodes on AI breakthroughs# Outline: Podcast Conversation on Nemotron-Research-Tool-N1\n**Episode Title**: \"Rethinking Tool-Calling: How Reinforcement Learning is Changing AI Models\"\n## Introduction (30 seconds)\n- **Adam**: Welcomes listeners and introduces the topic of tool-calling in AI language models\n- **Adam**: Introduces guest Bella, an AI researcher specializing in language model training methods\n- **Bella**: Briefly explains her background and interest in the Nemotron-Research-Tool-N1 research\n## Segment 1: Understanding Tool-Calling and Its Challenges (45 seconds)\n- **Adam**: Asks Bella to explain what tool-calling is in language models and why it matters\n- **Bella**: Defines tool-calling capabilities and their importance in practical AI applications\n- **Bella**: Outlines the limitations of traditional supervised fine-tuning approaches\n- **Adam**: Brings up the concept of \"imitative reasoning\" mentioned in the research\n## Segment 2: The Innovation of Tool-N1 (60 seconds)\n- **Adam**: Asks about what makes Nemotron-Research-Tool-N1 different\n- **Bella**: Explains the binary RL reward system approach vs. traditional SFT\n- **Bella**: Highlights how Tool-N1 evaluates only format validity and functional correctness\n- **Adam**: Clarifies that this approach doesn't dictate specific reasoning paths\n- **Bella**: Discusses how this allows models to develop independent reasoning strategies\n## Segment 3: Training Approaches Comparison (45 seconds)\n- **Adam**: Asks about the comparison between different training approaches\n- **Bella**: Explains the systematic comparison between SFT, RL, and SFT-then-RL pipelines\n- **Bella**: Shares the surprising finding that pure RL sometimes outperforms SFT-then-RL\n- **Adam**: Questions why this is significant for the field\n## Segment 4: Performance and Benchmarks (30 seconds)\n- **Adam**: Inquires about Tool-N1's performance compared to industry standards\n- **Bella**: Shares that Tool-N1-7B/14B models outperformed GPT-4o on several benchmarks\n- **Bella**: Emphasizes that this was achieved with smaller models and less complex training\n- **Adam**: Asks about the practical implications of these performance gains\n## Segment 5: Solving the \"Pseudo Reasoning\" Problem (45 seconds)\n- **Adam**: Asks Bella to elaborate on \"pseudo reasoning\" or \"imitative reasoning\"\n- **Bella**: Explains how models often mimic surface-level patterns without true understanding\n- **Bella**: Describes how Tool-N1's approach encourages more genuine reasoning capabilities\n- **Adam**: Discusses how this might lead to better generalization in real-world applications\n## Segment 6: Flexibility in Tool-Calling (30 seconds)\n- **Adam**: Asks about the advantage of rule-based rewards over strict output matching\n- **Bella**: Explains how the approach recognizes semantically equivalent tool calls\n- **Bella**: Provides examples of how this creates more flexibility in model responses\n- **Adam**: Reflects on how this mimics human problem-solving flexibility\n## Segment 7: Future Implications (45 seconds)\n- **Adam**: Asks about the broader implications of this research for AI development\n- **Bella**: Discusses how this could change how we train models for complex reasoning tasks\n- **Bella**: Speculates on how this might influence other areas beyond tool-calling\n- **Adam**: Questions if this could lead to more efficient training for smaller models\n## Conclusion (30 seconds)\n- **Adam**: Summarizes key takeaways from the conversation\n- **Bella**: Offers final thoughts on the significance of this research direction\n- **Adam**: Thanks Bella and invites listeners to continue the conversation online\n- **Adam**: Teases next episode topic related to advancements in AI reasoning capabilities\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/anthropic/claude-3.7-sonnet\n<<< Podcast content >>>\n{\"title\": \"AI Breakthroughs: Rethinking Tool-Calling with Nemotron-Research-Tool-N1\", \"summary\": \"Adam and Bella discuss groundbreaking research on Nemotron-Research-Tool-N1, which uses reinforcement learning instead of supervised fine-tuning to develop more genuine reasoning capabilities in AI language models for tool-calling tasks.\", \"lines\": [\n{\"text\": \"Welcome to AI Breakthroughs, the podcast where we explore cutting-edge developments in artificial intelligence. I'm your host, Adam. Today, we're diving into innovative approaches to tool-calling in AI language models, specifically looking at the recent Nemotron-Research-Tool-N1 research. Joining me is Bella, an AI researcher specializing in language model capabilities. Welcome to the show, Bella!\", \"speaker\": \"Adam\"},\n{\"text\": \"Thanks for having me, Adam. I'm excited to talk about this research, as it represents a significant shift in how we approach tool-calling in language models.\", \"speaker\": \"Bella\"},\n{\"text\": \"Let's start with the basics. Could you explain what tool-calling is and why it's so important for advancing AI capabilities?\", \"speaker\": \"Adam\"},\n{\"text\": \"Absolutely. Tool-calling is essentially the ability of language models to use external tools by generating properly formatted API calls. It's crucial because it extends what AI can do beyond just generating text—allowing models to perform calculations, search databases, or interact with other systems. Traditionally, we've trained these capabilities using supervised fine-tuning, where we show the model examples of correct tool usage.\", \"speaker\": \"Bella\"},\n{\"text\": \"And what are the limitations of this conventional approach?\", \"speaker\": \"Adam\"},\n{\"text\": \"The main limitation is what researchers call 'imitative reasoning' or 'pseudo reasoning.' Models trained with supervised fine-tuning often just mimic the surface patterns they've seen without truly understanding the underlying decision-making process. They're essentially copying solutions rather than learning to reason independently.\", \"speaker\": \"Bella\"},\n{\"text\": \"That's fascinating. So what makes Tool-N1 different from these previous approaches?\", \"speaker\": \"Adam\"},\n{\"text\": \"Tool-N1 takes a completely different approach by using rule-based reinforcement learning with binary rewards. Instead of showing the model exactly how to reason through examples, it only evaluates whether the final tool call is formatted correctly and produces the right result. The model receives a simple yes/no reward rather than being told exactly how to solve problems.\", \"speaker\": \"Bella\"},\n{\"text\": \"So unlike traditional methods, Tool-N1 doesn't require those annotated reasoning trajectories from stronger models?\", \"speaker\": \"Adam\"},\n{\"text\": \"Exactly. That's a key innovation. The model isn't forced to follow specific reasoning paths distilled from larger models. It develops its own problem-solving strategies based only on whether it got the final answer right. This is quite different from the standard pipeline of supervised fine-tuning followed by reinforcement learning that most systems use.\", \"speaker\": \"Bella\"},\n{\"text\": \"How does Tool-N1 perform compared to existing models? Are we seeing notable improvements?\", \"speaker\": \"Adam\"},\n{\"text\": \"The results are actually quite remarkable. Tool-N1 models, even at relatively small sizes of 7B and 14B parameters, outperform GPT-4o on several benchmarks. This is significant because we're achieving better performance with smaller models and a simpler training approach. It suggests we're training more efficiently by focusing on outcomes rather than process.\", \"speaker\": \"Bella\"},\n{\"text\": \"That's impressive. Does this indicate we might be moving toward more efficient approaches to AI development overall?\", \"speaker\": \"Adam\"},\n{\"text\": \"I think it could. The researchers conducted a systematic comparison between different training methods—SFT alone, RL alone, and the combined SFT-then-RL pipeline. What they found challenges conventional wisdom in the field. In some cases, pure reinforcement learning actually outperformed the combined approach that most research groups have adopted as standard.\", \"speaker\": \"Bella\"},\n{\"text\": \"Why is that finding so surprising?\", \"speaker\": \"Adam\"},\n{\"text\": \"It's surprising because the industry has generally assumed that you need to start with supervised learning to get the model in the right neighborhood before refining with reinforcement learning. This research suggests that for certain tasks, we might be able to skip that first step entirely and still get excellent results. It's more computationally efficient and doesn't rely on collecting large datasets of human-annotated examples.\", \"speaker\": \"Bella\"},\n{\"text\": \"How does this affect our understanding of AI reasoning capabilities? Does this approach produce models that reason more genuinely?\", \"speaker\": \"Adam\"},\n{\"text\": \"Yes, that's one of the most exciting implications. By rewarding correctness rather than specific reasoning paths, Tool-N1 appears to develop more authentic reasoning capabilities. The approach is also more flexible—it can recognize semantically equivalent solutions that might be expressed differently but are functionally correct. This is more similar to how humans solve problems—we often have multiple valid approaches to reach the same conclusion.\", \"speaker\": \"Bella\"},\n{\"text\": \"That flexibility seems key. So instead of enforcing a single 'right way' to solve a problem, the model can explore different reasoning strategies?\", \"speaker\": \"Adam\"},\n{\"text\": \"Precisely. And that's likely to lead to better generalization on new tasks the model hasn't seen before. Rather than just memorizing solution patterns, it's developing its own problem-solving framework based on what actually works.\", \"speaker\": \"Bella\"},\n{\"text\": \"As we wrap up, what do you see as the key takeaways from this research? What might it mean for the future of AI development?\", \"speaker\": \"Adam\"},\n{\"text\": \"I think the big takeaway is that we may need to rethink how we train models for complex reasoning tasks. By simplifying our approach—focusing on whether the model gets the right answer rather than dictating how it should think—we might actually enable more sophisticated reasoning. It also suggests smaller models can achieve impressive results with the right training approach, which has implications for democratizing AI capabilities.\", \"speaker\": \"Bella\"},\n{\"text\": \"Thank you, Bella, for these fascinating insights into Tool-N1's approach and its significance for AI development. To our listeners, thanks for tuning in to this episode of AI Breakthroughs. Join us next time as we continue exploring the cutting edge of artificial intelligence research.\", \"speaker\": \"Adam\"}\n]}\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\n⚙️ Running https://replicate.com/minimax/speech-02-hd\nTTS completed, combining audio files\nffmpeg version 5.1.6-0+deb12u1 Copyright (c) 2000-2024 the FFmpeg developers\nbuilt with gcc 12 (Debian 12.2.0-14)\nconfiguration: --prefix=/usr --extra-version=0+deb12u1 --toolchain=hardened --libdir=/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu --incdir=/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu --arch=amd64 --enable-gpl --disable-stripping --enable-gnutls --enable-ladspa --enable-libaom --enable-libass --enable-libbluray --enable-libbs2b --enable-libcaca --enable-libcdio --enable-libcodec2 --enable-libdav1d --enable-libflite --enable-libfontconfig --enable-libfreetype --enable-libfribidi --enable-libglslang --enable-libgme --enable-libgsm --enable-libjack --enable-libmp3lame --enable-libmysofa --enable-libopenjpeg --enable-libopenmpt --enable-libopus --enable-libpulse --enable-librabbitmq --enable-librist --enable-librubberband --enable-libshine --enable-libsnappy --enable-libsoxr --enable-libspeex --enable-libsrt --enable-libssh --enable-libsvtav1 --enable-libtheora --enable-libtwolame --enable-libvidstab --enable-libvorbis --enable-libvpx --enable-libwebp --enable-libx265 --enable-libxml2 --enable-libxvid --enable-libzimg --enable-libzmq --enable-libzvbi --enable-lv2 --enable-omx --enable-openal --enable-opencl --enable-opengl --enable-sdl2 --disable-sndio --enable-libjxl --enable-pocketsphinx --enable-librsvg --enable-libmfx --enable-libdc1394 --enable-libdrm --enable-libiec61883 --enable-chromaprint --enable-frei0r --enable-libx264 --enable-libplacebo --enable-librav1e --enable-shared\nlibavutil      57. 28.100 / 57. 28.100\nlibavcodec     59. 37.100 / 59. 37.100\nlibavformat    59. 27.100 / 59. 27.100\nlibavdevice    59.  7.100 / 59.  7.100\nlibavfilter     8. 44.100 /  8. 44.100\nlibswscale      6.  7.100 /  6.  7.100\nlibswresample   4.  7.100 /  4.  7.100\nlibpostproc    56.  6.100 / 56.  6.100\n[mp3 @ 0x61e7b880bd40] Estimating duration from bitrate, this may be inaccurate\nInput #0, concat, from '/tmp/file_list.txt':\nDuration: N/A, start: 0.000000, bitrate: 128 kb/s\nStream #0:0: Audio: mp3, 32000 Hz, mono, fltp, 128 kb/s\nOutput #0, mp3, to 'podcast.mp3':\nMetadata:\nTSSE            : Lavf59.27.100\nStream #0:0: Audio: mp3, 32000 Hz, mono, fltp, 128 kb/s\nStream mapping:\nStream #0:0 -> #0:0 (copy)\nPress [q] to stop, [?] for help\nsize=       1kB time=00:00:00.03 bitrate= 266.0kbits/s speed=N/A\n[mp3 @ 0x61e7b88131c0] Estimating duration from bitrate, this may be inaccurate\n[mp3 @ 0x61e7b881bc40] Estimating duration from bitrate, this may be inaccurate\n[mp3 @ 0x61e7b8828bc0] Estimating duration from bitrate, this may be inaccurate\n[mp3 @ 0x61e7b8848b40] Estimating duration from bitrate, this may be inaccurate\nLast message repeated 6 times\nsize=    6496kB time=00:06:55.69 bitrate= 128.0kbits/s speed=8.45e+03x\nvideo:0kB audio:6495kB subtitle:0kB other streams:0kB global headers:0kB muxing overhead: 0.009337%",
  "output": "https://replicate.delivery/xezq/q98CJLgHej2e0060Ku8KfHsYGKQnW6A7TIWstzEe9dcdfb6lC/podcast.mp3",
  "data_removed": false,
  "error": null,
  "source": "web",
  "status": "succeeded",
  "created_at": "2025-05-22T20:14:22.279Z",
  "started_at": "2025-05-22T20:14:22.286977Z",
  "completed_at": "2025-05-22T20:15:51.065117Z",
  "urls": {
    "cancel": "https://api.replicate.com/v1/predictions/43wae1qj8xrmc0cpz6gvj7c4hr/cancel",
    "get": "https://api.replicate.com/v1/predictions/43wae1qj8xrmc0cpz6gvj7c4hr",
    "stream": "https://stream.replicate.com/v1/files/bcwr-ukcgmaqbpzndifp3644plf3kuqy6hscmdz4yecctuhi5jg7cz6kq",
    "web": "https://replicate.com/p/43wae1qj8xrmc0cpz6gvj7c4hr"
  },
  "metrics": {
    "predict_time": 88.778140188,
    "total_time": 88.786117
  }
}