Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluating Tool-Augmented Agents in Remote Sensing Platforms

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2405.00709 v1 pith:R73RVP7P submitted 2024-04-23 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords theyagentsapplicationshereimage-textllmsremotesensing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Tool-augmented Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in remote sensing (RS) applications. However, existing benchmarks assume question-answering input templates over predefined image-text data pairs. These standalone instructions neglect the intricacies of realistic user-grounded tasks. Consider a geospatial analyst: they zoom in a map area, they draw a region over which to collect satellite imagery, and they succinctly ask "Detect all objects here". Where is `here`, if it is not explicitly hardcoded in the image-text template, but instead is implied by the system state, e.g., the live map positioning? To bridge this gap, we present GeoLLM-QA, a benchmark designed to capture long sequences of verbal, visual, and click-based actions on a real UI platform. Through in-depth evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs over a diverse set of 1,000 tasks, we offer insights towards stronger agents for RS applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Butterfly Effects in Toolchains: A Comprehensive Analysis of Failed Parameter Filling in LLM Tool-Agent Systems

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM tool agents fail at parameter filling in five recurring ways; perturbing tool documents and user queries drives most failures, and invented parameter names are tied to the model rather than the input.

Pith tools