Heh. I built "Fusion" a few months ago as an MCP using OpenRouter. The idea was to give Claude a "panel of experts" to go talk to when it got stuck. After extensive testing and benchmarking I discovered that when you ask one model to judge another's response you don't actually get a better answer. You are just asking it "how closely does this resemble the answer you would have given me." Additional rounds and all the…
Openrouter Fusion API
71–80 of 98 posts
Re: Openrouter Fusion API
#72 "I find that recently I end up using all of the models and all the time... for a lot of problems they have this 'NP Complete' nature to them, where coming up with a solution is significantly harder than verifying a candidate solution. So your best performance will come from just asking all the models, and then getting them to come to a consensus."
I realized at some point that 'consortium' was not proper term for what this was doing, since I was creating a kind of llm organization/council, whereas a consortium is a group of organizations. So rather than rename it I added the ability to create a consortium of consortiums, where each member can itself be a consortium models. The arbiter can also be a consortium which enables multi-model judging. This can obviously baloon token usage insanely, I think my record is over 100 models prompted from one prompt.So to reign in the token explosion somewhat I added a simple rank mode, which produces only a ranking, and then the top ranked answer is returned. You can use this in combination with meta-consortiums like this
>llm consortium save cns-kimi -m k2.7-code -n 5 --arbiter mercury-2 --judging-method rank
llm consortium save cns-glm -m glm-5.2 -n 5 --arbiter mercury-2 --judging-method rank
llm consortium save cns-meta-glm-kimi -m cns-glm -m cns-kimi --max-iterations 1 --arbiter qwen-3.5 # judging-method left at default to create a synthesis
This will first send five prompts each to kimi and glm and pick top ranked answer from each using the fast mercury-2 model, then it will create a synthesis from those two responses using a better model like qwen
Mercury-2 is extremely fast, and good for ranking mode, but for synthesis I prefer a slightly larger model. This is most important when you are using it inside a harness or agent with a strict output format. This is because then you end up nesting a complex structure embedded in another complex structure (llm-consortium uses structured reasoning with xml tags). Even opus sometimes struggles with this in the few times I tried it - but qwen, glm and kimi have all been reliable arbiters so far.If you combine it with the llm-model-gateway plugin you can serve a consortium like a regular model on an openai proxy and the response will be the synthesis, and conversation context is preserved for multi-turn chats.
[0] https://x.com/karpathy/status/1870692546969735361 Further reading: Mixture-of-agents https://www.together.ai/blog/together-moa Google's Mind-Evolution https://arxiv.org/html/2501.09891v1
Re: Openrouter Fusion API
#73Heh. I built "Fusion" a few months ago as an MCP using OpenRouter. The idea was to give Claude a "panel of experts" to go talk to when it got stuck. After extensive testing and benchmarking I discovered that when you ask one model to judge another's response you don't actually get a better answer. You are just asking it "how closely does this resemble the answer you would have given me." Additional rounds and all the…
Re: Openrouter Fusion API
#74 Let's review for architectural issues. Spawn 10 agents, create personas for them, have them review the _api.go and write their review to reviews/-review.md, then have each agent do a round robin response to 3 of the reviews of their choosing (based on the abstract at the beginning of each review) and write the response to response/--response.md. Then we do rebuttals to the responses in rebuttals/-rebuttal.md. Finally, each agent should launch agents to review the reviews, responses, and rebuttals to their review, and compile findings to findings/-findings.md. Finally, have another agent compile the findings and write that to review-findings.md. Present a concise version of the findings here.
This works well with frontier models and even locally hosted models (last I used it was with Qwen 3.5).Re: Openrouter Fusion API
#75Repo with video: https://github.com/monkeydust/rightmind
Re: Openrouter Fusion API
#76A unified UI would be great, although not obvious how useful the "fusion" value prop is.
Re: Openrouter Fusion API
#77Spent the weekend inspired by the new openrouter fusion model and wanted to see if it could run in Claude Code and if I could make it very easy for everyone else to try. Built - claude-fusion-launcher — run Claude Code on a panel of models, not just one Also shows cost https://github.com/smorinlabs/claude-fusion-launcher
Doesn't it get expensive fast? I found the one-off prompts I did in their website to cost almost a $1/prompt.
Re: Openrouter Fusion API
#78I tried OpenRouter Fusion with the budget model option but swapped out DeepSeek v3.2 for DeepSeek V4 Pro. The results weren't that bad. An interesting take on quorums for sure. However I did notice a tool call to Claude Opus 4.8 for 1168 - 237 tokens, and $0.0118 cost, which I cannot account for because Opus was not in my selection and only revealed in logs. Strange.
Same for me! I bet they use opus to synthesize the final answer somehow? Regardless, it was unexpected.
Re: Openrouter Fusion API
#79Re: Openrouter Fusion API
#80Are there any good web apps for asking a single question to multiple LLMs? I frequently find myself switching between LLMs to compare results. A unified UI would be great, although not obvious how useful the "fusion" value prop is.