Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 27 references

An Explainable Emotion Alignment Framework for LLM-Empowered Agent in Metaverse Service Ecosystem

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding evolving emotional states and self-explanation makes LLM-based agents in social simulations behave more like real people.

desk verdict Reasonable emotion-alignment framework, but confounded evaluation and unreproducible simulation; not ready as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22326 v1 pith:DUOC6QWF submitted 2025-07-30 cs.AI

Qun Ma , Xiao Xue , Ming Zhang , Yifan Shen , Zihan Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords emotionalignmentLLM-basedagentsmetaverseservicesocialsimulationPADmodelself-explanationfactinvolution
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

The paper proposes an 'emotion alignment' framework for LLM-based agents that adds a continuously updated emotional state and a self-explanation step to the agents' decision loop. It claims this makes agents in a metaverse service ecosystem act more realistically, specifically that the competition intensity ('involution') in a simulated food-delivery system tracks real-world delivery data more closely than agents without these components. The framework is tested on three generative tasks and in a 20-day rider-agent simulation. If the claim holds, emotion alignment offers a low-cost way to improve the fidelity of LLM-driven social simulations without retraining.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a three-part loop: (1) an Emotional Evolution System that derives each agent's current PAD values from environmental inputs such as income change, stamina change, and income-rank, mapping them to one of seven emotion states; (2) Self-Explanation, implemented via Zero-Shot-CoT, which forces the LLM to output both a decision and a causal rationale for that decision; and (3) Emotional Thought Memory, which stores the (question, decision, reason) triplets and feeds them into later decisions with a timeliness check. Together these components let the agent reason about its own emotion before acting, so decisions are not made from raw knowledge alone but from a state-consistent perspective.

What would settle it

Run a controlled experiment where the Base condition also includes Zero-Shot-CoT prompting, so the only difference from the emotion-aligned condition is the emotional state model and the rationale-generation loop; if the emotion-aligned agent then no longer tracks the real-world involution curve better than the CoT-only agent, the central claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LLM-based agents equipped with an Emotional Evolution System based on the PAD (Pleasure–Arousal–Dominance) model, plus a Self-Explanation mechanism where the agent generates a rationale for each decision, produce decisions that are consistent with their emotional state and thereby yield social emergence closer to real-world systems. The paper's key quantitative evidence is that the emotion-aligned experimental system exhibited a trend of involution (inverse coefficient of variation of riders' earnings) that was more consistent with real-world systems than the traditional and emotion-perceived baselines, and that these agents rejected fewer orders and clustered in fewer locations over the simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the improved realism in the simulation comes specifically from its emotion alignment framework, but its key ablation changes two things at once: the emotion-aligned condition adds both self-explanation and Zero-Shot-CoT prompting, while the base condition has neither, so the measured gain could be due to the prompting method alone rather than to emotion-based reasoning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the framework's gains are real, adding hand-coded emotional states and a rationale-generation step to LLM agents is a cheap, training-free way to increase realism in social simulations.
  • The same recipe could extend to other 'factual dimensions' such as health or psychological states, giving a general template for multi-factor agent alignment beyond emotion.
  • The lower order-rejection rate and weaker clustering among emotion-aligned agents suggest that emotional state acts as a bounded-rationality constraint, making simulated workers balance earnings and fatigue more like humans.
  • The involution metric used in the paper offers a quantitative probe for competition intensity that could be reused in other gig-economy or crowd simulations.
  • The framework establishes a comparison pattern: simulate agents with and without the alignment components and check which emergent curve best matches real-world data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A cleaner test of the Self-Explanation contribution would add Zero-Shot-CoT prompting to the Base condition while keeping all other variables fixed, since the reported +SE condition introduces both rationale generation and CoT at once; this is an editorial inference, not a claim in the paper.
  • The emotion alignment approach could plausibly transfer to other digital-labor or marketplace simulations, where the same PAD-style state variables could be redefined for the specific environment.
  • The framework's reliance on the top-10 nearest textual exemplars per emotional cluster makes its effectiveness sensitive to dataset quality and cluster count, a sensitivity the paper does not quantify.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes an "Explainable Emotion Alignment Framework" for LLM-based agents in Metaverse service ecosystems. The framework comprises four steps: emotional data clustering and sampling, construction of an emotional evolution system based on the PAD model, a Self-Explanation mechanism that asks the LLM to generate rationales via Zero-Shot-CoT, and emotional knowledge storage in a memory. The authors claim that this framework improves LLM response quality (RQ1) and produces more realistic emergent social behavior in an O2O food-delivery simulation, specifically an "involution" trend closer to real-world Zomato data (RQ2).

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and interesting problem: making LLM-based agents in social simulations behave in a more human-like, emotionally consistent manner. If the claims were well-supported, the framework would be a useful contribution to the Metaverse service and agent-based simulation literature. The authors are to be credited for proposing a concrete architecture, openly discussing limitations, and making an attempt to connect simulated outcomes with real-world data. However, as detailed in the major comments, the current empirical evidence is confounded, irreproducible, and partly circular, so the significance of the contribution is not yet established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-A, Table II, Algorithm 2] The RQ1 evaluation compares BaseLLMs directly with +SE versions, but the SE condition adds both rationale generation and zero-shot-CoT prompting, while the Base condition includes neither. Since the paper attributes the improvements to Self-Explanation (the central novelty), the experiment needs a control condition that uses Zero-Shot-CoT without the rationale requirement, or otherwise isolates the effect of the rationale-generation mechanism.
  2. [Section III-C, Equations (1) and (2)] The constants k in Pleasure = kΔIncome and Arousal = kΔHealth are never defined, and the time windows over which ΔIncome and ΔHealth are computed are not specified. Without these definitions the emotional-state computation is not reproducible, and the mapping from these scalar values to the PAD values used in the prompts is not made explicit.
  3. [Section V-A and Fig. 4(a)] The central claim that the emotion-alignment framework yields involution dynamics 'more consistent with real-world systems' is based on a visual overlay of a simulated curve and a 'real-world' curve whose construction from the cited Zomato dataset is never described. The manuscript does not state how riders' money is derived from the dataset, how the inverse coefficient of variation (Eq. 4) is computed over the data, or how time is aligned between the simulation and the real-world data. Without this methodology, the comparison cannot be checked, and 'more consistent' has no operational meaning.
  4. [Section IV-B vs. Appendix] The experimental setup described in the main text (six rider agents, 20 days, three experiment sets) directly contradicts the Appendix (100 generative agents, 30 days, 4 sets of experiments, 3600 steps). Such a discrepancy makes the presented results irreproducible and must be reconciled in any revision.
  5. [Section III-C and V-C] The observed coupling between emotional states and order-acceptance behavior is imposed by construction: the PAD emotional state is computed from the agent's income and health changes and then explicitly fed into the LLM's decision prompt. Therefore, the finding that positive emotions correlate with acceptance (Section V-C) is not an emergent discovery but a near-tautological consequence of the design. A control condition with randomly assigned or hidden emotional states is needed to support the claim that the emotion model itself, rather than the prompting structure, drives the reported behavior.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-A] The text says 'four prominent BaseLLMs' but Table II lists six models (Spark-2.0, ChatGPT, Llama2, DeepSeek-V3, Qwen2.5, Gemma3); please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Section III-B] The sentence 'The vectors of the upper and lower cultures are averaged' is unclear; presumably this refers to some form of text preprocessing, but the intended meaning should be stated.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'MetaV erse' in the section heading II-A, 'sentence t ransformers' in Section III-B, and 'Scikit−learn' with a nonstandard dash.
  4. [Section IV-B] The statement '2349 (including food delivery orders from multiple cities)' is not self-explanatory; are these 2349 orders or some other quantity? Please clarify.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Emotion-behavior coupling is pre-imposed by the PAD definitions and curated role data, so RQ2 'findings' are partly self-definitional.

  1. self definitional [Section III-C (Emotional Modeling, Eq. 1) and Section V-C (Comparisons of Emotions)]
    "Thus, the rider’s pleasantness can be seen as proportional to the change in his earnings: Pleasure = kΔIncome ... We found that when riders chose to accept orders, they were essentially in positive emotion states or neutral, such as Neutral, Surprise, and Happiness; whereas negative emotion states accounted for a small percentage of the time, and in particular Disgust never appeared when accepting an order, reflecting the fact that negative emotion states may be more inclined to be against all kinds of things."

    Eq. (1) defines Pleasure as proportional to income change. Because accepting a paid order increases income, the observation that order acceptance co-occurs with positive emotion is entailed by the definition rather than discovered. The same earnings variable underlies the involution metric (Eq. 4), so the reported emotion-behavior coupling in Fig. 4(c) is a re-expression of the income variable that the framework itself defines as pleasure.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section III-C (Emotional Dataset) and Section V-C]
    "Since this experiment wishes to explore the effect of emotion on social simulation, we continued to categorise the remaining data and retained only the data with the presence of ‘emotion-behaviour’ causality for the rider Agent’s emotion role learning."

    The role data are deliberately filtered to keep only instances containing emotion-behaviour causality, and these examples are then injected as prompts via Algorithm 2. The later 'emergent' finding that negative emotions incline agents to reject things and positive emotions accompany acceptance is precisely the causality used as the dataset selection criterion, so the reported pattern is inherited from the curated input rather than independently discovered.

full rationale

The most load-bearing result—emotion-behavior coupling in RQ2—is partly by construction: Eq. (1) ties pleasure to income change, and the role dataset is filtered for emotion-behaviour causality, so Fig. 4(c) and the associated 'negative emotions incline against things' statement restate the input definitions. The RQ1 comparison is confounded because the Base condition omits Zero-Shot-CoT, but this is a validity flaw rather than circularity. The Zomato realism comparison is qualitative and internally inconsistent (6 riders/20 days vs 100 riders/30 days), which undermines verification but is not a circular reduction. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness-theorem chain is present, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction beyond the dataset filtering noted above. Overall, the framework's central 'discovery' of emotion-behavior alignment reduces partly to its own definitions, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on several unvalidated modeling assumptions: that PAD coordinates capture real rider emotions, that LLMs can act on those coordinates believably, and that the filtered EDBE data is representative. The simulation outcome is not grounded by any fitted comparison to real data, and the arbitrary constants in the emotion equations are not justified.

free parameters (5)
  • k (Pleasure proportionality) = unspecified
    Equation (1) defines Pleasure = k ΔIncome with no stated value; the emotional state of every rider depends on it.
  • k (Arousal proportionality) = unspecified
    Equation (2) defines Arousal = k ΔHealth with no stated value.
  • Dominance criteria thresholds = [0.5, 0.3, 0.1, 0.0, -0.1, -0.3, -0.4]
    Equation (3) assigns dominance by hand-chosen rank thresholds with no source or validation.
  • Cluster count K = unspecified
    Algorithm 1 takes K as input but the paper never states the value used in the experiments.
  • Memory timeliness threshold = unspecified
    Section III-E says stale memories are removed, but no threshold is given, and this affects later decisions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PAD emotion dimensions are orthogonal and sufficient for representing the seven emotions.
    Section III-C constructs all agent emotions from PAD and assumes these coordinates capture role behavior.
  • domain assumption LLMs can meaningfully express a specified emotional state in behavior when given its PAD values.
    The decision loop in Section III-D feeds S[Emotion] to the LLM and assumes behavioral consistency.
  • domain assumption EDBE dataset's filtered emotion-behaviour items provide valid role demonstrations.
    Section III-C keeps only items with emotion-behaviour causality; this selection is unvalidated.
  • ad hoc to paper Zero-Shot-CoT rationale generation is responsible for the observed quality gains.
    RQ1's Base condition lacks CoT, so the unique effect of Self-Explanation is confounded with CoT.
  • domain assumption Simulated involution curve can be visually compared with Zomato data.
    Section V-A claims consistency with real-world data without a quantitative fit or metric.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Explainable Emotion Alignment Framework for LLM-Empowered Agent in Metaverse Service Ecosystem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DUOC6QWF

@misc{pith2026250722326,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Explainable Emotion Alignment Framework for LLM-Empowered Agent in Metaverse Service Ecosystem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DUOC6QWF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22326}
}
read the original abstract

Metaverse service is a product of the convergence between Metaverse and service systems, designed to address service-related challenges concerning digital avatars, digital twins, and digital natives within Metaverse. With the rise of large language models (LLMs), agents now play a pivotal role in Metaverse service ecosystem, serving dual functions: as digital avatars representing users in the virtual realm and as service assistants (or NPCs) providing personalized support. However, during the modeling of Metaverse service ecosystems, existing LLM-based agents face significant challenges in bridging virtual-world services with real-world services, particularly regarding issues such as character data fusion, character knowledge association, and ethical safety concerns. This paper proposes an explainable emotion alignment framework for LLM-based agents in Metaverse Service Ecosystem. It aims to integrate factual factors into the decision-making loop of LLM-based agents, systematically demonstrating how to achieve more relational fact alignment for these agents. Finally, a simulation experiment in the Offline-to-Offline food delivery scenario is conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of this framework, obtaining more realistic social emergence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22326 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Agents from Real-world Service Ecosystem to Metaverse Service [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of Explainable Emotion Alignment Framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our structure of agents with Emotion Alignment consists of four systems: (1) Perception. (2) Emotional System. (3) Decision. (4) Action. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overall performance of different Rider Agents in O2O experimental scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trajectory distribution of different types of Rider Agent. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Emotion distribution of Rider agents. E. Emotion Distribution Analysis for Rider Agents This study conducts an in-depth analysis of the emotional distribution patterns among rider agents, as visualized in Fig.6. The results reveal distinct emotional responses corre￾spo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Metaverse services in computing and engineering education,

    X. Xu and J. Impagliazzo, “Metaverse services in computing and engineering education,”Frontiers of Digital Education, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 132–141, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Language mod- els are few-shot learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askellet al., “Language mod- els are few-shot learners,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  3. [3]

    Comparative analytical survey on cognitive agents with emotional intelligence,

    R. Zall and M. R. Kangavari, “Comparative analytical survey on cognitive agents with emotional intelligence,”Cognitive Computation, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1223–1246, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    A theoretical under- standing of self-correction through in-context alignment,

    Y . Wang, Y . Wu, Z. Wei, S. Jegelka, and Y . Wang, “A theoretical under- standing of self-correction through in-context alignment,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, Eds., vol. 37. Curran Associates, Inc., 2024, pp. 89 869–89 912

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    A survey on large language model based autonomous agents,

    L. Wang, C. Ma, X. Feng, Z. Zhang, H. Yang, J. Zhang, Z. Chen, J. Tang, X. Chen, Y . Linet al., “A survey on large language model based autonomous agents,”Frontiers of Computer Science, vol. 18, no. 6, p. 186345, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior,

    J. S. Park, J. O’Brien, C. J. Cai, M. R. Morris, P. Liang, and M. S. Bernstein, “Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior,” inProceedings of the 36th annual acm symposium on user interface software and technology, 2023, pp. 1–22

    2023

  7. [7]

    Social learning evolution (sle): Computational experiment-based modeling framework of social manufacturing,

    X. Xue, S. Wang, L. Zhang, Z. Feng, and Y . Guo, “Social learning evolution (sle): Computational experiment-based modeling framework of social manufacturing,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 3343–3355, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Analysis and controlling of manufacturing service ecosystem: A research framework based on the parallel system theory,

    X. Xue, Y . Guo, S. Chen, and S. Wang, “Analysis and controlling of manufacturing service ecosystem: A research framework based on the parallel system theory,”IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1598–1611, 2019

    2019

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Compu- tational experiments for complex social systems—part i: The customiza- tion of computational model,

    X. Xue, F. Chen, D. Zhou, X. Wang, M. Lu, and F.-Y . Wang, “Compu- tational experiments for complex social systems—part i: The customiza- tion of computational model,”IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1330–1344, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework,

    S. Hong, X. Zheng, J. Chen, Y . Cheng, J. Wang, C. Zhang, Z. Wang, S. K. S. Yau, Z. Lin, L. Zhouet al., “Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00352, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 6, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Chatgpt chats on computational experiments: From interactive intelligence to imaginative intelligence for design of artificial societies and optimization of foundational models,

    X. Xue, X. Yu, and F.-Y . Wang, “Chatgpt chats on computational experiments: From interactive intelligence to imaginative intelligence for design of artificial societies and optimization of foundational models,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1357–1...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Econagent: Large language model-empowered agents for simulating macroeconomic activities,

    N. Li, C. Gao, M. Li, Y . Li, and Q. Liao, “Econagent: Large language model-empowered agents for simulating macroeconomic activities,” in Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers), 2024, pp. 15 523–15 536

    2024

  5. [13]

    Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback,

    Y . Bai, A. Jones, K. Ndousse, A. Askell, A. Chen, N. DasSarma, D. Drain, S. Fort, D. Ganguli, T. Henighanet al., “Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A comprehensive survey of llm alignment techniques: Rlhf, rlaif, ppo, dpo and more,

    Z. Wang, B. Bi, S. K. Pentyala, K. Ramnath, S. Chaudhuri, S. Mehro- tra, X.-B. Mao, S. Asuret al., “A comprehensive survey of llm alignment techniques: Rlhf, rlaif, ppo, dpo and more,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16216, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Computational experiments for complex social systems—part ii: The evaluation of computational models,

    M. Lu, S. Chen, X. Xue, X. Wang, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhang, and F.-Y . Wang, “Computational experiments for complex social systems—part ii: The evaluation of computational models,”IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1224–1236, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    FactAlign: Long-form factuality alignment of large language models,

    C.-W. Huang and Y .-N. Chen, “FactAlign: Long-form factuality alignment of large language models,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, Y . Al-Onaizan, M. Bansal, and Y .-N. Chen, Eds. Miami, Florida, USA: Association for Computational Lingu...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Computational experiments for complex social systems—part iii: the docking of domain models,

    X. Xue, X. Yu, D. Zhou, C. Peng, X. Wang, D. Liu, and F.-Y . Wang, “Computational experiments for complex social systems—part iii: the docking of domain models,”IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1766–1780, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners,

    T. Kojima, S. S. Gu, M. Reid, Y . Matsuo, and Y . Iwasawa, “Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 22 199–22 213, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    A new model for emotion-driven behavior extraction from text,

    Y . Sun, S. He, X. Han, and R. Zhang, “A new model for emotion-driven behavior extraction from text,”Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 15, p. 8700, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Automatically select emotion for response via personality-affected emotion transition,

    Z. Wen, J. Cao, R. Yang, S. Liu, and J. Shen, “Automatically select emotion for response via personality-affected emotion transition,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, 2021, pp. 5010–5020

    2021

  13. [21]

    Unsupervised evaluation of interactive dialog with dialogpt,

    S. Mehri and M. Eskenazi, “Unsupervised evaluation of interactive dialog with dialogpt,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.12719, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Character-level convolutional net- works for text classification,

    X. Zhang, J. Zhao, and Y . LeCun, “Character-level convolutional net- works for text classification,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 28, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Self-refine: Iter- ative refinement with self-feedback,

    A. Madaan, N. Tandon, P. Gupta, S. Hallinan, L. Gao, S. Wiegreffe, U. Alon, N. Dziri, S. Prabhumoye, Y . Yanget al., “Self-refine: Iter- ative refinement with self-feedback,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Com-putational experiments: Past, present and perspective,

    X. Xiao, Y . Xiang-Ning, Z. De-Yu, P. Chao, W. Xiao, Z. Zhang- Bing, and W. Fei-Yue, “Com-putational experiments: Past, present and perspective,”Acta Automatica Sinica, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 246–271, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Computational experiments for complex social systems: Integrated design of experiment system,

    X. Xue, X. Yu, D. Zhou, X. Wang, C. Bi, S. Wang, and F.-Y . Wang, “Computational experiments for complex social systems: Integrated design of experiment system,”IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1175–1189, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Computational experiments for complex social systems: Experiment design and generative explanation,

    X. Xue, D. Zhou, X. Yu, G. Wang, J. Li, X. Xie, L. Cui, and F.-Y . Wang, “Computational experiments for complex social systems: Experiment design and generative explanation,”IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1022–1038, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Zomato delivery operations analytics dataset,

    S. Badole, “Zomato delivery operations analytics dataset,” https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/saurabhbadole/ zomato-delivery-operations-analytics-dataset, 2024, 2025.2.16. APPENDIX More Details of Experimental Settings in Case Study We have outlined the experimental settings in S...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.