Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 52 references

LogiDebrief: A Signal-Temporal Logic based Automated Debriefing Approach with Large Language Models Integration

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LogiDebrief embeds modular LLM classifiers inside Signal Temporal Logic formulas to automatically grade 9-1-1 call-taker performance, reporting success on over a thousand real calls.

desk verdict Useful applied system with real deployment data, but the STL formalism is largely decorative as implemented—the temporal operators don't enforce any timing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03985 v1 pith:T6UJWHRK submitted 2025-05-06 cs.AI cs.SE

Zirong Chen , Ziyan An , Jennifer Reynolds , Kristin Mullen , Stephen Martini , Meiyi Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.SE
keywords signaltemporallogiclargelanguagemodels9-1-1calldebriefingruntimeverificationproceduralcompliancequalityassuranceemergencyresponseLLMintegration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

LogiDebrief claims to automate 9-1-1 call-taking debriefing by converting procedural manuals into Signal Temporal Logic (STL) specifications and embedding small, modular LLM calls inside those formulas to evaluate each requirement. The paper argues that this combination of deterministic temporal logic with LLM language understanding avoids the performance degradation that long-prompt reasoning suffers on long emergency calls. If the framework works as reported, it would let dispatch centers review every call, not a small sample, with feedback delivered in under 30 seconds per call rather than the average 11.5 minutes of manual review. The authors report deployment at a municipal emergency communications department, covering 1,701 calls and saving about 311.85 hours of quality-assurance engagement.

What carries the argument

The central object is the embedding of LLM calls as modular functions inside Signal Temporal Logic formulas: SCENE, TYPE, CRITICAL, DETECT, and SCAN each return a boolean at any time point, and STL's temporal operators, such as $\Diamond_{[0,T]}$, $\Box$, and deadlines like $\Diamond_{[0,\tau_1]}$, turn them into procedural requirements. The LLM functions supply semantic classification, such as whether the call-taker asked for the address or whether the bite was from a snake, while the STL shell supplies structure: preconditions gate which requirements apply, aggregation rules map requirement satisfactions to Yes, No, Refused, or NA, and the whole evaluation runs in linear time over the conversation's turns. The design deliberately keeps prompts short and modular to avoid the long-context degradation documented in the motivating study.

What would settle it

Take a set of calls for which human experts have annotated the intermediate predicates, such as scene type, call type, critical condition, and each required action, then corrupt or swap a known subset of LLM classifications and verify that the final quality-assurance form changes correspondingly. Alternatively, independently re-derive the 2,215 formal requirements from the source manuals and measure the agreement rate with the paper's formalization; a substantial disagreement would indicate the requirement set is incomplete or mistranscribed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that call-taking compliance can be checked by decomposing each procedural requirement into an STL formula whose atomic propositions are LLM boolean classifiers, SCENE, TYPE, CRITICAL, DETECT, and SCAN, rather than by asking a single LLM to reason over the whole transcript and manual. Each check in the quality assurance form is aggregated from requirements with explicit preconditions evaluated by the SCAN function, and temporal operators enforce ordering and deadlines, for example, that the address be asked within the first tau turns. The paper reports that this hybrid outperforms vanilla LLMs, RAG, ICL+RAG, and reasoning-specialized models on both real-world and emulated datasets, reaching 94 to 96 percent F-1 at the check level with a leading proprietary model, and that it generates reports in about 5.8 seconds per minute of call audio.

Load-bearing premise

The entire verification chain assumes that the LLM boolean classifications inside SCENE, TYPE, CRITICAL, DETECT, and SCAN are reliable and unbiased, and that the manually formalized set of 2,215 requirements is complete and correctly matches the source manuals; if an LLM misclassifies a transcript, the STL wrapper will faithfully propagate that error into the final check result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Review coverage can rise from roughly three percent of calls to near-total coverage, with 1,701 calls processed during deployment.
  • Debriefing time drops from 11.5 minutes per call to under 30 seconds, enabling just-in-time feedback within the same shift.
  • The modular LLM-in-STL design transfers across call types and responder departments without retraining the logic layer; new protocols become new STL requirements.
  • The framework generalizes to structured compliance audits in adjacent high-stakes domains such as medical triage and law enforcement training.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach suggests a general recipe for high-stakes procedural QA: let a formal temporal-logic shell impose structure and let LLMs answer only narrow semantic questions, a recipe testable in domains like medical triage audits or legal compliance checks.
  • If LLM classification noise is the true bottleneck, end-to-end accuracy could be further improved by ensembling multiple LLM calls or by expanding the confidence-based escalation mechanism, rather than by refining the logic layer.
  • The reported runtime is dominated by repeated LLM calls; a direct test of the modularity claim would be to replace the large LLM with a smaller distilled model for the same semantic predicates and measure the change in both runtime and accuracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LogiDebrief, a framework for automated post-call debriefing of 9-1-1 calls. The authors formalize call-taking requirements from the Metro Nashville Department of Emergency Communications (MNDEC) into Signal Temporal Logic (STL) specifications with preconditions, and they use LLM-based functions (SCENE, TYPE, CRITICAL, SCAN, DETECT) as atomic predicates inside those specifications. At runtime the system identifies the required responders, call type, and critical conditions; filters applicable checks; verifies each requirement; and aggregates results into quality assurance forms with template-based feedback. The authors report F1 improvements over several LLM baselines on 1,244 real-world calls and 13,200 simulated calls, a case study of deployment at MNDEC, a user study, and substantial claimed time savings (311.85 hours over 1,701 calls). The central novelty is the claimed integration of rigorous STL-based runtime checking with LLM language understanding.

Significance. If the claims held as stated, the paper would make a practically valuable contribution: it targets a real, underserved operational problem, reports a genuine deployment with an emergency-communications agency, and includes an extensive evaluation with both human-labeled real calls and a large simulated corpus. The real-world comparison against human QA labels is an independent source of grounding and is a notable strength. I also credit the authors for reporting deployment outcomes, user-study results, and runtime figures. However, the formal contribution that distinguishes the paper — STL-based runtime verification — is not actually realized by the implementation described in the manuscript, because the temporal operators are not given any temporal semantics in the LLM predicates. The evaluation also lacks a control that separates the effect of modular prompt decomposition from the effect of the logic layer. The practical debriefing system may still be useful, but the paper's central scientific claim about rigorous logic-based verification is, as written, unsupported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (1), (3), (5), (9), (13), and Appendix 8.5] The STL layer is semantically empty as implemented. Each of SCENE, TYPE, CRITICAL, SCAN, and DETECT is implemented as an LLM prompt that receives the full transcript and returns a single Yes/No boolean; no time-stamped signal, turn index, or bounded interval is passed to the prompt. Consequently, a formula such as 3_{[0,τ1]} DETECT(ω_a, 'ask address') (Table 1, r1) reduces to a single existential query over the entire call: if the address is requested after the first τ1 turns, the requirement is still satisfied. The same vacuity affects every bounded temporal requirement in Table 1, including the address reconfirmation requirement r4 with its [T−τ2,T] interval. Therefore the paper's claim of 'rigorous logic-based verification' is not supported by the implementation as described, and the reported F1 gains cannot be attributed to STL semantics rather than to shorter, modular prompts.
  2. [Section 5, emulation data generation] The emulation benchmark is partly circular. The ground truth for the 13,200 simulated calls is generated by scripted call-takers whose available actions are masked according to a percentage α of the same formalized requirements that LogiDebrief is checking (third paragraph of Section 5). High F1 on this benchmark therefore partly reflects whether the LLM predicates can reproduce the scripted generation process, not whether the 2,215-requirement formalization is complete or correctly captures real procedural deviations. The real-world evaluation against human QA labels provides independent grounding and is a genuine strength, but the emulation results should be interpreted with this circularity in mind, and the paper should state this limitation explicitly.
  3. [Section 5.1, Table 2] The experimental design does not separate the contribution of the logic layer from the contribution of prompt modularity. The paper motivates LogiDebrief by showing that long prompts degrade LLM performance (Section 2, Figure 1), and LogiDebrief differs from the ICL+RAG baseline not only by adding STL but also by replacing a long, full-form prompt with many short, focused prompts. Without an ablation in which the same LLM functions are orchestrated by ordinary control flow (for example, plain if/then aggregation over the same SCENE/TYPE/CRITICAL/DETECT/SCAN outputs) without the STL wrapper, the F1 differences in Table 2 cannot be attributed to STL. This ablation is necessary to support the paper's central claim that formal logic, rather than prompt engineering, drives the improvement.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Appendix 8.5] The manuscript states that 2,215 requirements were formalized with domain experts, but it does not provide the requirement set, the mapping from the MNDEC manuals to STL, or a complete example debriefing report. The appendix gives only a handful of illustrative requirements and prompt templates. Because the correctness of the formalization is load-bearing for the claim of 'fully-covered rigorous performance evaluation,' and because the results are highly sensitive to the exact prompt templates, the authors should release the requirement specification, the code, and the evaluation data, or at minimum a substantial representative excerpt, to make the work auditable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The temporal notation is inconsistent and sometimes malformed: for example, '3≤[0,τ1]' and '3≤τ' appear in r1 and r3, whereas the standard STL notation used elsewhere is 3_{[0,τ1]} or 3_{[0,τ]}. Please standardize the notation throughout.
  2. [Section 5.2 and Appendix 8.1] There is a numerical inconsistency in participant counts: Section 5.2 reports 29 participants (16 trainees, 5 active call-takers, 8 training/QA officers), while Appendix 8.1 reports 27 participants with a different breakdown (19 trainees, 7 intermediate, 1 active). Please clarify which study is being described and reconcile the numbers.
  3. [Section 3 and Table 1] The terms 'veri add' and 'veriadd' are used interchangeably, and the answer function is described in Eq. (14) as returning an empty string when no answer is found while the prompt template in Appendix 8.5 returns 'N/A'. Please unify the notation and the fallback behavior.
  4. [Appendix 8.5] The confidence-aware fallback mechanism (70% threshold) is mentioned in a single sentence, but the paper does not report how often this fallback was triggered in the experiments or how sensitive the F1 results are to the threshold. A short sensitivity analysis or at least a reporting of fallback frequency would strengthen the robustness claims.
  5. [Abstract and Section 5.2] The abstract states that LogiDebrief 'assisted in debriefing 1,701 real-world calls,' and Section 5.2 reports 1,244 cross-reviewed calls plus 457 independently analyzed calls. These numbers are consistent (1,244 + 457 = 1,701), but the phrasing in the abstract could be clarified to indicate that the 1,701 figure includes both cross-reviewed and independently analyzed calls.
  6. [Throughout] The tables are dense and the multi-column layout of Table 2 is difficult to read, especially the conditional/unconditional split and the α=25/50/75 columns. A larger font or a restructured presentation with separate sub-tables would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The logic layer is a notational wrapper over whole-transcript LLM booleans, and the emulation benchmark is generated from the same requirement set; real-world human-QA comparison keeps the central claim partly independent.

  1. renaming known result [Sec. 4.2 Eq. (13); Appendix 8.5 DETECT prompt; Table 1 r1]
    "DETECT Function Prompt Template: ... [Call Transcript]:{CALL TRANSCRIPT} [Task]: Determine whether the call-taker performed the following action: ”{ACTION TO VERIFY}” Return “Yes” if performed, otherwise return “No.” ... STL Function: DETECT(ω, action) := 3[0,T] (ω(t)|= action)"

    As implemented, DETECT receives only the full transcript and returns one boolean; no time-stamped signal, turn prefix, or interval is passed. Therefore `3≤[0,τ1]DETECT(ωa,'ask address')` (Table 1 r1) has the same truth value as the whole-transcript LLM answer, and the bounded temporal deadline is never enforced. The same collapse applies to SCENE, TYPE, CRITICAL, and SCAN (Eqs. 1, 3, 5, 9), whose prompts ask whole-transcript yes/no questions. The formal object is a relabeling of an LLM classification; it does not derive any temporal or logic consequence by construction.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 5, emulated dataset construction]
    "we construct a diverse dataset encompassing various call types and call-taker proficiency levels: (1) Defining all requirements with their preconditions (e.g., snake vs. non-snake bites); (2) Using LLMs to generate simulated 9-1-1 reports under role-play [Chen et al., 2025]; and (3) Interacting with controlled actions [Chen et al., 2024b] where call-takers access only a percentage ( α) of requirements. Those scripted actions also generate the ground truth."

    The emulation ground truth is generated from scripted actions defined against the same 2,215 formalized requirements and preconditions that LogiDebrief's SCAN/DETECT formulas check. A call is labeled 'No' precisely when the script masks the action the system is looking for, so the emulation F1 measures agreement with the authors' own requirement decomposition rather than an external standard. That part of the reported accuracy is thus built into the benchmark definition; the real-world QA labels are the independent portion.

full rationale

LogiDebrief does not fit parameters to data, and its central comparison on 1,244 real-world calls against MNDEC human QA labels is independent evidence for the debriefing-accuracy claim; that prevents a high circularity score. The main circularity is partial. First, the STL layer as written is semantically vacuous: the LLM predicates in Eqs. 1, 3, 5, 9, and 13 are prompted with the full call transcript and return a single boolean, so bounded eventualities like r1 in Table 1 are not evaluated over their stated intervals; the logic notation renames LLM yes/no classification rather than adding temporal enforcement. Second, the emulation dataset is generated from the same requirement definitions and scripted actions used for ground truth, so performance on that set is partly by construction. Minor self-citations (An et al. 2025; Chen et al. 2025) are not load-bearing. Overall score 4: some self-defined evaluation and a notational STL layer, but independent real-world validation remains.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a manually constructed requirement database, LLM reliability, and the correctness of the emulated ground truth. The STL machinery uses standard temporal logic but with LLM predicates as atoms, so the formal layer adds structure rather than independent evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • Temporal hyper-parameters tau1 through tau8 = not reported
    Adaptable hyper-parameters in the STL specifications (Table 1) that set detection windows for required actions; no values or tuning procedure are reported.
  • Observation window T = not reported
    Appears in every SCENE, TYPE, DETECT, and SCAN formula and bounds the eventuality operator; its value is part of the specification but not stated.
  • LLM confidence threshold = 70%
    The fallback mechanism in Appendix 8.5 escalates checks with in-context confidence below 70%; this threshold is chosen by hand and affects low-confidence flags.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The MNDEC call-taking manuals and QA forms can be completely and correctly formalized into 2,215 STL requirements with preconditions.
    Section 4.1 states this was done through expert collaboration; if the formalization is incomplete or wrong, all downstream checks inherit the error.
  • domain assumption LLM boolean responses used inside SCENE, TYPE, CRITICAL, DETECT, and SCAN are reliable enough for procedural QA.
    All logical operators are wrappers around LLM prompts (Equations 1, 3, 5, 9, 13), so the system's correctness depends on LLM classification accuracy.
  • domain assumption The emulated calls and scripted ground truth correctly represent real call-taker behavior and QA outcomes.
    Section 5 creates 13,200 simulated calls via LLM role-play and alpha-controlled actions; the labels come from the same scripted requirement masks.
  • standard math Standard STL semantics apply to discrete conversation transcripts.
    The paper uses Maler and Nickovic STL with 3[0,T] over the transcript; the transcript is treated as a signal omega(t).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LogiDebrief: A Signal-Temporal Logic based Automated Debriefing Approach with Large Language Models Integration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T6UJWHRK

@misc{pith2026250503985,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LogiDebrief: A Signal-Temporal Logic based Automated Debriefing Approach with Large Language Models Integration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T6UJWHRK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03985}
}
read the original abstract

Emergency response services are critical to public safety, with 9-1-1 call-takers playing a key role in ensuring timely and effective emergency operations. To ensure call-taking performance consistency, quality assurance is implemented to evaluate and refine call-takers' skillsets. However, traditional human-led evaluations struggle with high call volumes, leading to low coverage and delayed assessments. We introduce LogiDebrief, an AI-driven framework that automates traditional 9-1-1 call debriefing by integrating Signal-Temporal Logic (STL) with Large Language Models (LLMs) for fully-covered rigorous performance evaluation. LogiDebrief formalizes call-taking requirements as logical specifications, enabling systematic assessment of 9-1-1 calls against procedural guidelines. It employs a three-step verification process: (1) contextual understanding to identify responder types, incident classifications, and critical conditions; (2) STL-based runtime checking with LLM integration to ensure compliance; and (3) automated aggregation of results into quality assurance reports. Beyond its technical contributions, LogiDebrief has demonstrated real-world impact. Successfully deployed at Metro Nashville Department of Emergency Communications, it has assisted in debriefing 1,701 real-world calls, saving 311.85 hours of active engagement. Empirical evaluation with real-world data confirms its accuracy, while a case study and extensive user study highlight its effectiveness in enhancing call-taking performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03985 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Message Length vs. One-shot Solve Rate with Llama 3.2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the Quality Assurance Form. Each form [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the LogiDebrief Workflow. It evaluates call-taker performance by analyzing past calls against formalized requirements. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The power of assessment feedback in teaching and learning: a narrative review and synthesis of the literature

    Michael Agyemang Adarkwah. The power of assessment feedback in teaching and learning: a narrative review and synthesis of the literature. SN Social Sciences , 1(3):75, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Planning for the unknown: Local government strategies from the fiscal year 2021 budget season in response to the covid-19 pandemic

    Whitney Afonso. Planning for the unknown: Local government strategies from the fiscal year 2021 budget season in response to the covid-19 pandemic. State and Local Government Review , 53(2):159--171, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    The value and effectiveness of feedback in improving students' learning and professionalizing teaching in higher education

    Md Mamoon-Al-Bashir Ahea, Md Rezaul Kabir Ahea, and Ismat Rahman. The value and effectiveness of feedback in improving students' learning and professionalizing teaching in higher education. Journal of Education and Practice , 7(16):38--41, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Why does the effective context length of llms fall short? arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18745 , 2024

    Chenxin An, Jun Zhang, Ming Zhong, Lei Li, Shansan Gong, Yao Luo, Jingjing Xu, and Lingpeng Kong. Why does the effective context length of llms fall short? arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18745 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Combining llms with logic-based framework to explain mcts

    Ziyan An, Xia Wang, Hendrik Baier, Zirong Chen, Abhishek Dubey, Taylor T Johnson, Jonathan Sprinkle, Ayan Mukhopadhyay, and Meiyi Ma. Combining llms with logic-based framework to explain mcts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00610 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Bounded model checking of signal temporal logic properties using syntactic separation

    Kyungmin Bae and Jia Lee. Bounded model checking of signal temporal logic properties using syntactic separation. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages , 3(POPL):1--30, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Cityspec: An intelligent assistant system for requirement specification in smart cities

    Zirong Chen, Isaac Li, Haoxiang Zhang, Sarah Preum, John A Stankovic, and Meiyi Ma. Cityspec: An intelligent assistant system for requirement specification in smart cities. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Smart Computing (SMARTCOMP) , pages 32--39. IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    An intelligent assistant for converting city requirements to formal specification

    Zirong Chen, Isaac Li, Haoxiang Zhang, Sarah Preurn, John A Stankovic, and Meiyi Ma. An intelligent assistant for converting city requirements to formal specification. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Smart Computing (SMARTCOMP) , pages 174--176. IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Cityspec with shield: A secure intelligent assistant for requirement formalization

    Zirong Chen, Isaac Li, Haoxiang Zhang, Sarah Preum, John A Stankovic, and Meiyi Ma. Cityspec with shield: A secure intelligent assistant for requirement formalization. Pervasive and Mobile Computing , 92:101802, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Benchmarking large language models in retrieval-augmented generation

    Jiawei Chen, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. Benchmarking large language models in retrieval-augmented generation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, pages 17754--17762, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Auto311: A confidence-guided automated system for non-emergency calls

    Zirong Chen, Xutong Sun, Yuanhe Li, and Meiyi Ma. Auto311: A confidence-guided automated system for non-emergency calls. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, pages 21967--21975, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Sim911: Towards effective and equitable 9-1-1 dispatcher training with an llm-enabled simulation

    Zirong Chen, Elizabeth Chason, Noah Mladenovski, Erin Wilson, Kristin Mullen, Stephen Martini, and Meiyi Ma. Sim911: Towards effective and equitable 9-1-1 dispatcher training with an llm-enabled simulation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol...

    2025

  5. [13]

    Scaling instruction-finetuned language models

    Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 25(70):1--53, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    nl2spec: interactively translating unstructured natural language to temporal logics with large language models

    Matthias Cosler, Christopher Hahn, Daniel Mendoza, Frederik Schmitt, and Caroline Trippel. nl2spec: interactively translating unstructured natural language to temporal logics with large language models. In International Conference on Computer Aided Verification , pages 383--39...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Gemini-flash-thinking: Multi-modal reasoning with external memory

    Google DeepMind. Gemini-flash-thinking: Multi-modal reasoning with external memory. Google Research Blog , 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Deepseek-v3: Scaling open large language models with moe, 2024

    DeepSeek. Deepseek-v3: Scaling open large language models with moe, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning, 2025

    DeepSeek. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Exploring context window of large language models via decomposed positional vectors

    Zican Dong, Junyi Li, Xin Men, Wayne Xin Zhao, Bingbing Wang, Zhen Tian, Weipeng Chen, and Ji-Rong Wen. Exploring context window of large language models via decomposed positional vectors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18009 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    An automated system repair framework with signal temporal logic

    Mert Ergurtuna, Beyazit Yalcinkaya, and Ebru Aydin Gol. An automated system repair framework with signal temporal logic. Acta Informatica , 59(2):183--209, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size, 2024

    Google. Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Intelligent tutoring systems

    Arthur C Graesser, Mark W Conley, and Andrew Olney. Intelligent tutoring systems. American Psychological Association , 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet

    Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Adams Wei Yu, Xinying Song, and Denny Zhou. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01798 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    America's 911 workforce is in crisis, 2023

    IAED and NASNA. America's 911 workforce is in crisis, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Call volume and quality assurance challenges in u.s

    APCO International. Call volume and quality assurance challenges in u.s. dispatch centers, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.apcointl.org

    2020

  17. [25]

    Can large language models reason and plan? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1534(1):15--18, 2024

    Subbarao Kambhampati. Can large language models reason and plan? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1534(1):15--18, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Babilong: Testing the limits of llms with long context reasoning-in-a-haystack

    Yuri Kuratov, Aydar Bulatov, Petr Anokhin, Ivan Rodkin, Dmitry Sorokin, Artyom Sorokin, and Mikhail Burtsev. Babilong: Testing the limits of llms with long context reasoning-in-a-haystack. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10149 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich K \"u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \"a schel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Deductive verification of chain-of-thought reasoning

    Zhan Ling, Yunhao Fang, Xuanlin Li, Zhiao Huang, Mingu Lee, Roland Memisevic, and Hao Su. Deductive verification of chain-of-thought reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts

    Nelson F Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 12:157--173, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Data sets, modeling, and decision making in smart cities: A survey

    Meiyi Ma, Sarah M Preum, Mohsin Y Ahmed, William T \"a rneberg, Abdeltawab Hendawi, and John A Stankovic. Data sets, modeling, and decision making in smart cities: A survey. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems , 4(2):1--28, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Monitoring temporal properties of continuous signals

    Oded Maler and Dejan Nickovic. Monitoring temporal properties of continuous signals. In International symposium on formal techniques in real-time and fault-tolerant systems , pages 152--166. Springer, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    When a language model is optimized for reasoning, does it still show embers of autoregression? an analysis of openai o1

    R Thomas McCoy, Shunyu Yao, Dan Friedman, Mathew D Hardy, and Thomas L Griffiths. When a language model is optimized for reasoning, does it still show embers of autoregression? an analysis of openai o1. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01792 , 2024

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003--2009

    William C McGaghie, S Barry Issenberg, Emil R Petrusa, and Ross J Scalese. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003--2009. Medical education , 44(1):50--63, 2010

    2003

  26. [34]

    Llama 3.2: Revolutionizing edge ai and vision with open, customizable models, 2024

    Meta. Llama 3.2: Revolutionizing edge ai and vision with open, customizable models, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Selfcheck: Using llms to zero-shot check their own step-by-step reasoning

    Ning Miao, Yee Whye Teh, and Tom Rainforth. Selfcheck: Using llms to zero-shot check their own step-by-step reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00436 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Explainable reinforcement learning: A survey and comparative review

    Stephanie Milani, Nicholay Topin, Manuela Veloso, and Fei Fang. Explainable reinforcement learning: A survey and comparative review. ACM Computing Surveys , 56(7):1--36, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    FDNY Issue Brief , 2025

    NY. FDNY Issue Brief , 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-14

    2025

  30. [38]

    Gpt-4o system card, 2024

    OpenAI. Gpt-4o system card, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Openai o1 system card, 2024

    OpenAI. Openai o1 system card, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Enhancing text classification through llm-driven active learning and human annotation

    Hamidreza Rouzegar and Masoud Makrehchi. Enhancing text classification through llm-driven active learning and human annotation. In The 18th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW-XVIII) Co-located with EACL 2024 , page 98, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models

    Weijia Shi, Xiaodong Liu, Jing Shao, Pengcheng Liu, Jiawei Han, and Jianfeng Gao. Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12652 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search and generation for open-domain question answering

    Kurt Shuster, Samuel Humeau, Antoine Bordes, and Jason Weston. Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search and generation for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Clinical debriefing: a concept analysis

    Andrea J Toews, Donna E Martin, and Wanda M Chernomas. Clinical debriefing: a concept analysis. Journal of clinical nursing , 30(11-12):1491--1501, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Language models don't always say what they think: unfaithful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting

    Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel Bowman. Language models don't always say what they think: unfaithful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    The behavior of tutoring systems

    Kurt VanLehn. The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , 16:227--265, 2006

    2006

  38. [46]

    Searching for best practices in retrieval-augmented generation

    Xiaohua Wang, Zhenghua Wang, Xuan Gao, Feiran Zhang, Yixin Wu, Zhibo Xu, Tianyuan Shi, Zhengyuan Wang, Shizheng Li, Qi Qian, et al. Searching for best practices in retrieval-augmented generation. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pr...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35:24824--24837, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Empirical study of llm fine-tuning for text classification in legal document review

    Fusheng Wei, Robert Keeling, Nathaniel Huber-Fliflet, Jianping Zhang, Adam Dabrowski, Jingchao Yang, Qiang Mao, and Han Qin. Empirical study of llm fine-tuning for text classification in legal document review. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) , pages...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Mastering symbolic operations: Augmenting language models with compiled neural networks

    Yixuan Weng, Minjun Zhu, Fei Xia, Bin Li, Shizhu He, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. Mastering symbolic operations: Augmenting language models with compiled neural networks. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    A comparative study on reasoning patterns of openai's o1 model

    Siwei Wu, Zhongyuan Peng, Xinrun Du, Tuney Zheng, Minghao Liu, Jialong Wu, Jiachen Ma, Yizhi Li, Jian Yang, Wangchunshu Zhou, et al. A comparative study on reasoning patterns of openai's o1 model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13639 , 2024

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning

    Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Timothy Novikoff, and Noah Goodman Li. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.