Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Context-Aware Search and Retrieval Over Erasure Channels

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper gives a closed-form expression for the probability that a remote retrieval system picks the wrong document when the query feature vector is sent over an erasure channel, and shows that spending extra repetition on important…

desk verdict The fixed-rate erasure analysis is sound and genuinely new enough to referee, but the adaptive-redundancy claim collapses under the paper's own setup and needs reframing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11894 v1 pith:Q7IN2ZWM submitted 2025-07-16 cs.IR cs.ITmath.IT

Sara Ghasvarianjahromi , Yauhen Yakimenka , Jörg Kliewer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.ITmath.IT MSC 68P2068P3094A15
keywords semanticcommunicationerasurechanneltermfrequencyretrievalerrorprobabilityrepetitioncodingZipfdistributionjointGaussianapproximationretrieval-augmentedgeneration
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

This paper asks whether a retrieval system can still pick the right document when the query's feature vector is transmitted over an erasure-prone channel, and whether spending redundancy on the more important words helps. Treating the query as a Zipf-distributed bag of terms, it encodes the term-frequency feature vector with a repetition code whose per-term rate follows the term's importance, and decodes by comparing the recovered query against two candidate documents in TF-IDF space. The main claim is a closed-form expression for the retrieval error probability: the chance that the receiver chooses the less similar document equals an erasure-pattern average of a bivariate-normal tail probability. The result matters because it gives a quantitative way to trade code rate against retrieval accuracy in a RAG-style pipeline.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the pair $(s, \hat{s} \mid e)$. Because both $s$ and $\hat{s}$ are linear transformations of the asymptotically Gaussian term-frequency vector $v_q$---namely $s = a^T v_q + \sum_i c_i$ and $\hat{s} \mid e = a^T D_e v_q + \sum_i c_i$ with $D_e = \operatorname{diag}(e)$---they are jointly Gaussian, with correlation $\rho_e$ determined by the erasure pattern. Theorem 1 then reduces the opposite-sign probability to a bivariate normal CDF, making the error probability an explicit average over erasure patterns.

What would settle it

Run a Monte Carlo experiment with $l=50$, $N=49000$ and a fixed erasure pattern, estimating the joint distribution of $s$ and $\hat{s}$ empirically; if the measured probability that $s$ and $\hat{s}$ have opposite signs differs from $\Phi(\delta) + \Phi(\hat{\delta}) - 2\Phi_2(\delta, \hat{\delta}; \rho_e)$ by more than sampling error, the Gaussian approximation fails. The paper's own real-data curves lying below theory already suggest such a discrepancy is possible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 1: conditional on an erasure pattern $e$, the true similarity difference $s$ and the reconstructed difference $\hat{s}$ are asymptotically jointly Gaussian, and the probability that they have opposite signs---the retrieval error---is $\Phi(\delta) + \Phi(\hat{\delta}) - 2\Phi_2(\delta, \hat{\delta}; \rho_e)$, averaged over erasure patterns. This turns retrieval reliability into a calculable function of the query distribution, the code rate, and the erasure probability, and the simulations support the formula while showing that importance-proportional repetition lowers the error rate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the true and reconstructed similarity differences are jointly Gaussian at the finite query and vocabulary sizes used ($l=50$, $N=49000$), justified by a central-limit argument for large vocabularies; if that approximation is poor, the closed-form error probability in Theorem 1 does not match the actual system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a fixed code rate, allocating more repetitions to higher-TF terms reduces the probability of choosing the wrong document, and the closed form predicts how much.
  • System designers can choose erasure probability and code rate from the expression rather than by simulation alone.
  • Removing the most frequent stop words before encoding cuts transmitted overhead while leaving retrieval accuracy essentially unchanged.
  • The real-query experiments on a Wikipedia-derived question set follow the same trend and sit below the theoretical curve, so the model is conservative in practice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two-document restriction is the main simplification; extending to $n$ documents would require a union bound or a max-score distribution, but the same jointly Gaussian pair machinery could be reused.
  • The consistently lower error on real Natural Questions data hints that a fitted query distribution, rather than Zipf with the paper's exponent, would tighten the theoretical curve.
  • The closed form could support optimization of the repetition counts $r_i$ beyond the proportional rule in Eq. (8), for instance minimizing the averaged expression under a rate constraint.
  • Because the error expression is an average over erasure patterns, it extends in principle to other channels, such as packet loss or burst erasures, by changing the erasure-pattern distribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a search-and-retrieval system over a symbol erasure channel, in which query term-frequency features are encoded with a repetition code whose per-term rate is, in principle, adapted to term importance. The receiver reconstructs the query vector and selects the document whose TF-IDF squared L2 distance is smallest. The main theoretical contribution is Theorem 1, which gives an expression for the retrieval error probability (the chance that the receiver selects the less similar document) under a joint Gaussian approximation for the true and reconstructed similarity differences, averaged over erasure patterns. The paper validates the analysis with Monte Carlo simulations on synthetic Zipf-distributed data and on a Google Natural Questions (NQ) based setup, and reports that repetition coding lowers the error probability.

Significance. If the central claims are fully supported, the paper would be a useful first information-theoretic treatment of retrieval-augmented-generation-like query matching over a lossy channel. The Gaussian approximation route and the reduction of the retrieval decision to a bivariate normal orthant probability are clean, and Theorem 1 is internally correct conditional on that approximation. The paper also explicitly states its modeling assumptions, and the Monte Carlo validation serves as an internal consistency check. However, the headline claim that semantic-aware (adaptive) redundancy allocation reduces retrieval error is not actually tested by the experiments, and the term 'closed-form' overstates the computational complexity of the derived expression. These issues are load-bearing for the abstract and introduction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV-B, Eq. (8)] The central claim that assigning greater redundancy to critical features reduces retrieval error is not supported by the presented experiments. In the synthetic setup (l=50, N=49000, ls=10), query terms are drawn i.i.d. from the Zipf distribution, so with overwhelming probability no term appears more than once; hence v_{q,i}=1/l for every nonzero coordinate, and Eq. (8) yields identical repetitions r_i = ceil(1/R) for all terms. The authors acknowledge this in Sec. IV-B ('almost all important terms appear only once, resulting in roughly equal importance'), but the abstract and Sec. I still attribute the gain to semantic-aware encoding. The comparison between R=1 and R=1/2 varies total redundancy uniformly, so it cannot distinguish adaptive from uniform allocation. The theoretical analysis in Sec. IV-A assumes fixed repetitions r_i = r and therefore also does not certify adaptivity. To support the abstract claim, the authors should add experiments with repeated important terms (e.g., smaller vocabulary or queries with repeated content words) that compare the adaptive allocation of Eq. (8) against a uniform allocation with the same total rate, or they should revise the claims to refer to repetition coding rather than semantic-aware adaptivity.
  2. [Sec. IV-A, Theorem 1] The paper calls the expression in Theorem 1 'explicit' and 'closed-form,' but the average over erasure patterns e is a sum over all 2^M patterns, where M is the number of nonzero query terms (about 40 in the experimental setup). The theoretical curves in Fig. 2 must therefore be computed either by Monte Carlo sampling over patterns or by exploiting a special structure that is not stated in the paper. Please clarify the computational procedure used to evaluate Theorem 1 and qualify the term 'closed-form' accordingly.
  3. [Sec. III-B, Eq. (6)] The joint Gaussian approximation of (v_q, \hat v_q) is load-bearing for Proposition 1 and Theorem 1, yet its accuracy is not assessed for the finite parameters used in the experiments (l=50, N=49000). The reported Google NQ curves consistently lie below the theoretical curves (Sec. IV-B), which indicates that the approximation is imperfect and that the real-data terms depart from the i.i.d. Zipf model. A quantitative evaluation of the approximation (e.g., normality diagnostics on the simulated s and \hat s, or a discussion of the convergence regime) would strengthen the validity claim. The synthetic-vs-theory match in Fig. 2 is an internal consistency check, not an independent validation, because both use the same generative model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (15)] There is a typo in the definition of a_i: 'a_i = 2 ξ_i^2 (v_{d2,i} − v_{d2,i})' should presumably read 'v_{d2,i} − v_{d1,i}'.
  2. [Eq. (8)] The ceiling notation ⌈·⌉ is used without being defined, and the derivation of the rate formula should state explicitly that it enforces the constraint R = M / Σ_i r_i and discuss the effect of rounding on the realized rate.
  3. [Sec. IV-B, Fig. 2] The text refers to Google NQ curves 'as seen from this figure,' but the figure caption only mentions analytical and numerical results for the synthetic data; please clarify whether the real-data curves are included in Fig. 2 or in a separate figure.
  4. [Sec. IV-B] The real-data experiment is described too briefly: the preprocessing of the long-answer passages, the generation and filtering of the 29 additional queries per document, the stop-word cutoff, and the vocabulary construction should be specified to make the experiment reproducible.
  5. [Sec. IV-A] The definition of retrieval error as P[s \hat s < 0] implicitly assumes that d1 is the ground-truth document and that ties have probability zero; this assumption should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The analytic centerpiece (Theorem 1) is self-contained, but the paper's advertised demonstration of semantic-aware, importance-proportional encoding is not: under the paper's Zipf/l=50 setup, Eq. (8) assigns every nonzero term the same repetition count, so the reported R=1 vs R=1/2 gain is only a uniform-repetition gain relabeled as adaptive.

  1. other [Sec. IV-B, Eq. (8), and Fig. 2 discussion]
    "Note that for the simulations the number of repetitions was determined using the rate formula in (8), whereas the analytical results assume a fixed rate. However, since the query terms are sampled from Zipf's law, almost all important terms appear only once, resulting in roughly equal importance across all terms. ... This improvement highlights the advantage of assigning redundancy to important terms, which enhances resilience to erasures."

    In the synthetic setup, l=50 terms are drawn i.i.d. from a Zipf vocabulary, so with high probability each term occurs once and every nonzero entry of v_q equals 1/l. Substituting v_{q,i}=1/l into r_i = ceil( (M/(R * sum_j v_{q,j})) * v_{q,i} ) yields r_i = ceil(1/R) for all i, a constant. The paper even concedes 'roughly equal importance across all terms.' Consequently the R=1 vs R=1/2 comparison in Fig. 2 changes only total redundancy, never the allocation across terms. The claimed conclusion that 'assigning redundancy to important terms' lowers error is therefore not derived from any adaptive experiment; the input allocation is uniform by construction, and the observed gain is exactly the standard repetition-code gain.

full rationale

The paper's analytical chain is not circular. The Gaussian approximation for the similarity scores comes from an external CLT (Wasserman [19], Thrm. 14.5) applied to the multinomial count vector, the parameters of the joint distribution are fixed by the Zipf model and the erasure probability, and Theorem 1 is a standard bivariate-normal probability identity (Phi(delta)+Phi(delta-hat)-2 Phi2(...)) with no fitted constants. The Monte Carlo simulations use the same generative model, so they are an internal consistency check rather than an external prediction; that is not circular. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no imported uniqueness theorem. The one genuine reduction-by-construction occurs in the paper's headline claim about adaptive, importance-proportional encoding: because the synthetic queries contain no repeated terms, Eq. (8) degenerates to uniform repetition, as the paper itself notes. The comparison of R=1 and R=1/2 therefore demonstrates only the effect of total redundancy, and attributing the improvement to 'assigning greater redundancy to critical features' is equivalent to relabeling the uniform-repetition result as semantic-aware. This is a partial circularity in one experimental claim, while the core fixed-rate analysis remains independent and mathematically self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on the Zipf query model, the multivariate CLT, the treatment of document vectors as fixed, and the restriction to uniform repetition in the theorem. None of the assumptions is fitted to the target error probability; they are modeling choices. The adaptive repetition rule in Eq. (8) is also a design choice not analyzed theoretically.

free parameters (3)
  • stop-word cutoff l_s = 10
    The top 10 most frequent terms are forced to zero before transmission; chosen by hand in the numerical section and not part of the derivation.
  • code rate R = 1 and 1/2
    The target transmission rate is chosen by the experimenter; the repetition counts in Eq. (8) depend on it.
  • Zipf exponent alpha = not stated in numerics (typically 1)
    The term distribution in Eq. (1) depends on alpha; the numerical section does not specify the value used, which is required to reproduce the synthetic simulations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Query terms are drawn independently from a Zipf distribution (Eq. (2))
    The entire probability model for the query vector and its Gaussian approximation rests on this. Real queries are not i.i.d. Zipf draws.
  • domain assumption Multivariate CLT gives vq approximately Gaussian for the finite l and N used
    Section III.B invokes normality for large l; simulations use l=50 and N=49000, where the approximation is an assumption that is not proven.
  • domain assumption Documents are deterministic or independent of the query in the theorem; the IDF vector xi is treated as fixed
    Theorem 1 conditions on the document TF-IDF vectors; the Gaussianity of s then follows from vq alone. If documents are also random and correlated with vq, the marginal error probability is not covered by the theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper Fixed repetition counts r_i = r in the theoretical analysis
    Section IV.A explicitly restricts the theorem to equal repetition counts, while the system model and abstract promote adaptive repetition counts from Eq. (8).
  • domain assumption Squared L2 distance with IDF weighting is the correct contextual closeness and ground-truth ranking
    The error probability is defined by selection among documents by this metric; the real-data NQ experiment treats the associated passage as ground truth.
  • domain assumption Erasures of different repetitions are independent with probability epsilon
    Section III.D models a memoryless erasure channel, which is a standard assumption but not verified for the real-data setting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Context-Aware Search and Retrieval Over Erasure Channels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q7IN2ZWM

@misc{pith2026250711894,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Context-Aware Search and Retrieval Over Erasure Channels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q7IN2ZWM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11894}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces and analyzes a search and retrieval model that adopts key semantic communication principles from retrieval-augmented generation. We specifically present an information-theoretic analysis of a remote document retrieval system operating over a symbol erasure channel. The proposed model encodes the feature vector of a query, derived from term-frequency weights of a language corpus by using a repetition code with an adaptive rate dependent on the contextual importance of the terms. At the decoder, we select between two documents based on the contextual closeness of the recovered query. By leveraging a jointly Gaussian approximation for both the true and reconstructed similarity scores, we derive an explicit expression for the retrieval error probability, i.e., the probability under which the less similar document is selected. Numerical simulations on synthetic and real-world data (Google NQ) confirm the validity of the analysis. They further demonstrate that assigning greater redundancy to critical features effectively reduces the error rate, highlighting the effectiveness of semantic-aware feature encoding in error-prone communication settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11894 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System model. A. Vocabulary and Query As described in the system model, we assumed a predefined vocabulary V with N distinct terms. The frequencies of the terms within this vocabulary follow Zipf’s law [18]. According to this law, each term ti ∈ V is assigned a unique rank i based on its frequency in the vocabulary, with t1 being the most frequent term and tN being the least frequent. The frequency fi ∝ 1/i α of a t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Analytical and numerical error probability results for the L2-norm similarity measure versus query [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Buttcher, C

    S. Buttcher, C. L. Clarke, and G. V . Cormack, Information retrieval: Implementing and evaluating search engines . Mit Press, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Improving the domain adaptation of retrieval augmented generation (RAG) models for open domain question answering,

    S. Siriwardhana, R. Weerasekera, E. Wen, T. Kaluarachchi, R. Rana, and S. Nanayakkara, “Improving the domain adaptation of retrieval augmented generation (RAG) models for open domain question answering,” Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , vol. 11, pp. 1–17, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    A survey on question answering systems over linked data and documents,

    E. Dimitrakis, K. Sgontzos, and Y . Tzitzikas, “A survey on question answering systems over linked data and documents,” Journal of Intelligent Information Systems , vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 233–259, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Retrieving and reading: A comprehensive survey on open-domain question answering,

    F. Zhu, W. Lei, C. Wang, J. Zheng, S. Poria, and T.-S. Chua, “Retrieving and reading: A comprehensive survey on open-domain question answering,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00774 , 2021

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    What is semantic communication? A view on conveying meaning in the era of machine intelligence,

    Q. Lan, D. Wen, Z. Zhang, Q. Zeng, X. Chen, P. Popovski, and K. Huang, “What is semantic communication? A view on conveying meaning in the era of machine intelligence,” Journal of Communications and Information Networks , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 336–371, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    From semantic communication to semantic-aware networking: Model, architecture, and open problems,

    G. Shi, Y . Xiao, Y . Li, and X. Xie, “From semantic communication to semantic-aware networking: Model, architecture, and open problems,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 44–50, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Semantics-empowered communications: A tutorial- cum-survey,

    Z. Lu, R. Li, K. Lu, X. Chen, E. Hossain, Z. Zhao, and H. Zhang, “Semantics-empowered communications: A tutorial- cum-survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Semantic communications: Overview, open issues, and future research directions,

    X. Luo, H.-H. Chen, and Q. Guo, “Semantic communications: Overview, open issues, and future research directions,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 210–219, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Semantic communications for future internet: Fundamentals, applications, and challenges,

    W. Yang, H. Du, Z. Q. Liew, W. Y . B. Lim, Z. Xiong, D. Niyato, X. Chi, X. Shen, and C. Miao, “Semantic communications for future internet: Fundamentals, applications, and challenges,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 213–250, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Less data, more knowledge: Building next generation semantic communication networks,

    C. Chaccour, W. Saad, M. Debbah, Z. Han, and H. V . Poor, “Less data, more knowledge: Building next generation semantic communication networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Semantic importance-aware communications using pre-trained language models,

    S. Guo, Y . Wang, S. Li, and N. Saeed, “Semantic importance-aware communications using pre-trained language models,” IEEE Communications Letters , 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey,

    Y . Gao, Y . Xiong, X. Gao, K. Jia, J. Pan, Y . Bi, Y . Dai, J. Sun, and H. Wang, “Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Evaluating retrieval quality in retrieval-augmented generation,

    A. Salemi and H. Zamani, “Evaluating retrieval quality in retrieval-augmented generation,” in Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2024, pp. 2395–2400

    2024

  6. [14]

    Enhancing llm factual accuracy with rag to counter hallucinations: A case study on domain-specific queries in private knowledge-bases,

    J. Li, Y . Yuan, and Z. Zhang, “Enhancing llm factual accuracy with rag to counter hallucinations: A case study on domain-specific queries in private knowledge-bases,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10446 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Enhancing code translation in language models with few-shot learning via retrieval-augmented generation,

    M. Bhattarai, J. E. Santos, S. Jones, A. Biswas, B. Alexandrov, and D. O’Malley, “Enhancing code translation in language models with few-shot learning via retrieval-augmented generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19619 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Performance evaluation of vector embeddings with retrieval-augmented generation,

    S. Kukreja, T. Kumar, V . Bharate, A. Purohit, A. Dasgupta, and D. Guha, “Performance evaluation of vector embeddings with retrieval-augmented generation,” in 2024 9th International Conference on Computer and Communication Systems (ICCCS), 2024, pp. 333–340

    2024

  9. [17]

    Improving accuracy of GPT-3/4 results on biomedical data using a retrieval-augmented language model,

    D. Soong, S. Sridhar, H. Si, J.-S. Wagner, A. C. C. Sá, C. Y . Yu, K. Karagoz, M. Guan, S. Kumar, H. Hamadeh et al. , “Improving accuracy of GPT-3/4 results on biomedical data using a retrieval-augmented language model,” PLOS Digital Health, vol. 3, no. 8, p. e0000568, 2024. 13

    2024

  10. [18]

    Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions,

    S. T. Piantadosi, “Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , vol. 21, pp. 1112–1130, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Wasserman, All of statistics: a concise course in statistical inference

    L. Wasserman, All of statistics: a concise course in statistical inference . Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Analysis of tf-idf model and its variant for document retrieval,

    A. Mishra and S. Vishwakarma, “Analysis of tf-idf model and its variant for document retrieval,” in 2015 international Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks (CICN) , 2015, pp. 772–776

    2015

  13. [21]

    A review on recent research in information retrieval,

    S. Ibrihich, A. Oussous, O. Ibrihich, and M. Esghir, “A review on recent research in information retrieval,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 201, pp. 777–782, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    A stop list for general text,

    C. Fox, “A stop list for general text,” in Acm Sigir Forum, vol. 24, no. 1-2. ACM New York, NY , USA, 1989, pp. 19–21

    1989

  15. [23]

    TFIDF based feature words extraction and topic modeling for short text,

    G. Zhao, Y . Liu, W. Zhang, and Y . Wang, “TFIDF based feature words extraction and topic modeling for short text,” in Proceedings of the 2018 2nd International Conference on Management Engineering, Software Engineering and Service Sciences, 2018, pp. 188–191

    2018

  16. [24]

    Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research,

    T. Kwiatkowski, J. Palomáki, O. Redfield, M. Collins, A. Parikh, C. Alberti, D. Epstein, I. Polosukhin, J. Devlin, K. Lee, K. Toutanova, L. Jones, M. Kelcey, M.-W. Chang, A. Dai, J. Uszkoreit, Q. Le, and S. Petrov, “Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering researc...

    2019

  17. [25]

    The llama3 herd of models,

    A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, and et al. , “The llama3 herd of models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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