Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Leveraging Large Language Models for Institutional Portfolio Management: Persona-Based Ensembles

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GPT-4, prompted as three investor personas and combined by majority voting, beats buy-and-hold on Sharpe ratio during rising-CPI months and loses during falling-CPI months.

desk verdict A transparent empirical study of persona-based LLM ensembles whose central CPI claim is confounded by the 2022 bear market and in-sample ensemble selection; worth peer review, but the headline result is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19515 v1 pith:IE7MVZ4E submitted 2024-11-29 cs.CE cs.MA

Yoshia Abe , Shuhei Matsuo , Ryoma Kondo , Ryohei Hisano This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CEcs.MA
keywords largelanguagemodelsportfoliomanagementpersona-basedpromptingensemblemethodsSharperatioCPItrendGPT-4stock-bond
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 large language model can manage an institutional-style portfolio of stocks and bonds by reading ten days of economic indicators and predicting whether the portfolio will rise or fall by more than two percent over the next five days. It claims that GPT-4, prompted with three investor personas and combined by majority (mode) voting, beats a simple buy-and-hold benchmark in Sharpe ratio during periods when the CPI trend is rising, while buy-and-hold does better when the CPI trend is falling. The paper also claims that persona choice changes the model's reasoning: short- and medium-term personas focus on decline signals such as interest-rate spreads, volatility, and a flattening yield curve, whereas the long-term persona more often identifies growth signals such as a steepening yield curve. If right, LLM-based position adjustment is not uniformly superior but is a regime-dependent tool that could complement rule-based strategies.

What carries the argument

The central object is the persona-based mode ensemble. Each day, GPT-4 is run five times under each of three personas (short-, medium-, and long-term investor); within each persona the five outputs are reduced to a single class by majority vote, and then the three persona-level votes are again reduced by majority vote to one of hold, fall, or rise. This ensemble is paired with a position-adjustment rule, Pattern 1, that lowers the portfolio position by 0.2 on a fall prediction and raises it by 0.2 otherwise. The comparison engine is a regime split: months are labeled High or Low according to whether the six-month moving average of year-over-year US CPI rose or fell from the previous month. The paper reports that the ensemble raises accuracy from roughly 0.35 per persona to 0.366 and raises the decline-detection F1-score to 0.484 with recall of 0.674.

What would settle it

Re-split the same 26-month window using an equity-trend variable, such as the sign of the 40/60 portfolio's six-month moving average of returns, instead of the CPI trend; if the LLM strategy's Sharpe-ratio advantage follows the equity regime rather than the CPI regime, the paper's central attribution is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an LLM can act as a regime-aware institutional portfolio manager. Using GPT-4, the authors feed the previous ten days of seven economic indicators into prompts that assign the model a short-, medium-, or long-term investor persona, ask it to predict whether a 40/60 stock-bond portfolio will fall, rise, or move less than two percent in the next five days, and convert those predictions into position-size changes. They find that the mode ensemble, which takes a majority vote over five repeated runs and then over the three personas, improves both overall accuracy and the F1-score for decline predictions. The resulting LLM-based strategy achieves a higher Sharpe ratio than buy-and-hold during the high-CPI-trend months, while buy-and-hold is better during the low-CPI-trend months. They further observe that LLM strategies cut positions to zero during the sharp declines of September-October 2022 and September-October 2023, and that personas shift the qualitative reasoning from persistent decline cues toward growth cues as the investment horizon lengthens.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that the CPI-trend split, not the coincident stock-market regime, is what makes the LLM strategy outperform; the paper does not test the two explanations separately.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under a rising CPI trend, the LLM-based Pattern 1 strategy achieves a higher average monthly Sharpe ratio than buy-and-hold and beats it in more months.
  • Under a falling CPI trend, buy-and-hold has the higher average Sharpe ratio, so a conventional strategy may be more suitable in that regime.
  • Mode ensembling, both within repeated runs and across personas, is the reliable accuracy booster; the sensitive ensemble consistently lowers accuracy.
  • LLM strategies are not uniformly faster at de-risking: they caught the September-October 2022 and September-October 2023 drawdowns well but were slow during the June 2022 decline, where trend-following baselines did better.
  • On other metrics the result is mixed: different baselines win on return, volatility, and maximum drawdown depending on the CPI regime, so no single strategy dominates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the paper leaves implicit is a hybrid policy: use the LLM signal to cut exposure in sharp drawdowns and a rule-based trend strategy to re-enter, which could exploit the complementary strengths the paper documents.
  • The CPI-trend split is correlated with the broad equity regime, so a natural follow-up is to re-split the same months by portfolio trend instead of CPI trend; if the Sharpe-ratio advantage follows the equity regime, the inflation attribution would not be supported.
  • A testable generalization would run the same prompts on other inflation episodes with different market backdrops, for example a rising-CPI period with rising equities, to see whether the claimed advantage is a property of the CPI regime or of the coincident downturn.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether GPT-4, prompted with distinct institutional-investor personas, can predict three-class price movements of a 40% stock / 60% bond portfolio and then drive a rule-based position-sizing strategy. Using data from October 2021 to January 2024, the authors test short-, medium-, and long-term personas and two ensemble schemes (mode and sensitive), finding that a mode ensemble across trials and personas improves accuracy and, more importantly, the F1 score for decline prediction. In a backtest, they report that LLM-based strategies, especially Pattern 1, achieve higher Sharpe ratios than buy-and-hold during periods of rising CPI trend, while buy-and-hold performs better during declining CPI trends. They also provide a qualitative analysis of LLM reasoning, attempting to extract cause-effect relations behind each persona's predictions.

Significance. If the central result were robust, the paper would be a useful contribution to the growing literature on LLM-based portfolio construction, particularly the idea that persona diversity can be leveraged through simple ensembles. The qualitative analysis of LLM rationales is a strength, and the authors provide their prompts on GitHub, which supports reproducibility. However, the evaluation is limited to a single 26-month window, the ensemble method is selected on the same data used for evaluation, and the CPI regime split is almost collinear with the 2022 bear market. These issues mean the headline claim about CPI-driven outperformance is not yet established; the paper is more convincing as a demonstration of LLMs' ability to de-risk in downturns.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V-C and Abstract] The central claim that LLM strategies outperform in Sharpe ratio during rising CPI is confounded by the market regime. The High-CPI period (Nov 2021-Aug 2022 plus Dec 2023) coincides almost exactly with the 2022 equity bear market, whereas the Low-CPI period (Sep 2022-Nov 2023) is comparatively flat. The paper itself admits in §V-C that LLM strategies achieve a higher Sharpe ratio 'particularly when there is a macroscopic downward trend.' Since Pattern 1 reduces exposure on class-1 predictions, and the LLM emits class-1 predictions far more often than other classes (Table V: 307 vs 133 and 153 predicted counts), the outperformance in High-CPI months may simply reflect systematic de-risking in a downtrend. The paper does not disentangle CPI trend from market trend, and the abstract's assertion that the effect occurs 'during periods of rising CPI' is therefore not supported by the presented analysis.
  2. [§IV-B/§V-A vs. §V-B] The ensemble method (mode) is selected after evaluating its accuracy and F1 on the entire 593-weekday period, and the same period is then used to measure strategy performance in Experiment 2. This is an in-sample selection procedure: the reported Sharpe-ratio advantages of the mode-based Pattern 1 strategy are optimistically biased because the choice of the model was itself derived from the evaluation sample. A chronological split for model selection, or at least a reporting of results under both the mode and sensitive ensembles for all strategies, is necessary to assess the true effect.
  3. [§V-C, Tables VI and VII] All conclusions rest on 26 monthly observations, further subdivided into two regimes, yet no significance tests, confidence intervals, or bootstrap estimates are reported. The Sharpe-ratio differences that drive the main claim (e.g., Pattern 1 vs buy-and-hold in the High period) could easily be driven by a small number of months. Without a paired test across months, or some measure of dispersion, the statement that LLM strategies 'outperform' buy-and-hold in High-CPI periods is not statistically supported.
  4. [§V-C, Table VII] The two evaluation criteria yield inconsistent conclusions in the Low-CPI period: for the Sharpe ratio, buy-and-hold is best by best-mean but Pattern 1 is best by win-ratio. This discrepancy is not discussed, and the paper's emphasis on the High-period result while ignoring the Low-period inconsistency weakens the claimed regime-dependence. The authors should either reconcile these two criteria or explain why one criterion is more appropriate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV-C] The parameters dflat, dwindow, dcontinuity, and sthreshold are introduced without clear definitions; please define each at first use and explicitly state the chosen values (currently they appear only in parenthetical descriptions).
  2. [Table VI] The 'nan' entries (e.g., 2023-05 and 2023-06 for CM(D3)) are not explained; please clarify why volatility is zero in those months and how such months are handled in the summary statistics.
  3. [§IV-C, Sharpe ratio definition] The Sharpe ratio is written as 'S = 1/V Rcumul'; please use parentheses, e.g., S = R_cumul / V, and state whether a risk-free rate is assumed (the text implies zero).
  4. [Figures 4 and 5] The caption describes background shading (white, dark gray, light gray) but does not define what 'light gray' (outside the evaluation period) represents; please add a clear legend or note.
  5. [GitHub link] The repository URL in §IV-A contains a space ('llm based portfolio management'); please correct it to a valid hyperlink.
  6. [§V-D] The qualitative analysis relies on the authors' own narrative-analysis method [30]; please briefly describe the method in the text so the reader can understand how cause-effect pairs were extracted and why hallucination is avoided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation

full rationale

The central claim that LLM-based strategies outperform buy-and-hold in Sharpe ratio during rising CPI periods is not circular. The LLM predictions are produced by GPT-4, an external model trained before the evaluation period, and no parameters are fitted to the target data; the strategy rules deterministically map predictions to positions. The CPI regime split is defined solely by macroeconomic data (6-month moving average of YoY CPI), independent of the strategy's outputs. The comparison in Table VII is an empirical contingency, not an equivalence by construction. The only self-citation is reference [30] used in Section V-D to extract cause-effect relationships for qualitative analysis; this is peripheral to the Sharpe-ratio result and thus not load-bearing. The in-sample selection of the mode ensemble based on prediction accuracy is an overfitting risk, but it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and the paper does not claim an out-of-sample forecast. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is identified.

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

The central claim rests on assumptions about the representativeness of the evaluation period, the validity of the CPI-regime split, and the absence of leakage in GPT-4's post-2021 predictions. No new entities are invented; the 'personas' are prompt conditions, not physical constructs. The free parameters listed are hand-chosen constants or method selections that materially affect the reported performance.

free parameters (4)
  • mode ensemble selection = mode (not sensitive)
    The mode ensemble across five trials and three personas was chosen because it gave the highest accuracy (0.366) and class-1 F1 (0.484) on the same 593-weekday evaluation period (Experiment 1), and this selection was then used to build the investment strategies in Experiment 2. This is a hand-picked method based on the test set.
  • CPI trend split threshold = 0 (6-month moving average of YoY change rise or fall)
    Months are classified High or Low based on whether the 6-month moving average of the year-over-year US CPI Total change increases or decreases relative to the previous month. This boundary and window are chosen by the authors and affect which months fall into each regime.
  • position step size and dflat = 0.2 position increments; dflat=5 days
    Strategy patterns adjust positions in 0.2 steps and Pattern 3 uses dflat=5 days to re-enter. These are fixed constants not tuned, but they influence performance and are not tested for sensitivity.
  • prediction threshold = 2% move over 5 days
    The LLM is asked to predict whether the portfolio will rise or fall by more than 2% within 5 days. This threshold defines the classification task and therefore the strategy signals.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-4's pretraining cutoff (Sep 2021) prevents leakage of post-2021 outcomes
    The paper assumes that because the model was trained up to Sep 2021, its predictions on Oct 2021-Jan 2024 data are out-of-sample. This is reasonable but not guaranteed, as the model may have implicit knowledge from public discourse prior to that date or from alignment training.
  • domain assumption The 40/60 stock-bond portfolio is a representative institutional mandate
    The paper fixes the portfolio as 40% US equities and 60% US bonds without justification; this composition affects the return series and all strategy comparisons.
  • domain assumption The Sharpe ratio as defined (Rcumul/V) is an adequate performance measure
    The paper defines Sharpe ratio as cumulative return divided by volatility without subtracting a risk-free rate; this is a standard simplification but is not the textbook Sharpe ratio.
  • domain assumption LLM outputs are exchangeable across five trials
    The ensemble methods (mode and sensitive) treat the five repeated calls as independent samples; the paper does not test for correlation across trials or across personas.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leveraging Large Language Models for Institutional Portfolio Management: Persona-Based Ensembles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IE7MVZ4E

@misc{pith2026241119515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leveraging Large Language Models for Institutional Portfolio Management: Persona-Based Ensembles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IE7MVZ4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19515}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising performance in various financial applications, though their potential in complex investment strategies remains underexplored. To address this gap, we investigate how LLMs can predict price movements in stock and bond portfolios using economic indicators, enabling portfolio adjustments akin to those employed by institutional investors. Additionally, we explore the impact of incorporating different personas within LLMs, using an ensemble approach to leverage their diverse predictions. Our findings show that LLM-based strategies, especially when combined with the mode ensemble, outperform the buy-and-hold strategy in terms of Sharpe ratio during periods of rising consumer price index (CPI). However, traditional strategies are more effective during declining CPI trends or sharp market downturns. These results suggest that while LLMs can enhance portfolio management, they may require complementary strategies to optimize performance across varying market conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19515 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our approach. The following sequence of prompts was used in the experi￾ment: First, an overview of the task and relevant considerations is provided as a system attribute prompt. Next, the LLM is queried to assess its understanding of various economic indicators. Then, numerical data from the past 10 days for various economic indicators are input, and the model is asked to interpret the trends. Finally, b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Accuracy of five trials for each persona condition (short, medium, or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. F1-score (Class 1) of five trials for each persona condition (short [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Changes in the positions of the buy-and-hold, CM(D2), RG(S5), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Changes in the portfolio values of the buy-and-hold, CM(D2), RG(S5), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Company similarity using large language models,

    D. Vamvourellis, et al., “Company similarity using large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08031, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Enhancing knowl- edge graph construction using large language models,

    M. Trajanoska, R. Stojanov, and D. Trajanov, “Enhancing knowl- edge graph construction using large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04676, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Accounting fraud detection using contextual language learning,

    I. Bhattacharya and A. Mickovic, “Accounting fraud detection using contextual language learning,” Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst., vol. 53, p. 100682, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A survey of large language models for financial applications: Progress, prospects and challenges,

    Y . Nie, Y . Kong, X. Dong, J. M. Mulvey, H. V . Poor, Q. Wen, and S. Zohren, “A survey of large language models for financial applications: Progress, prospects and challenges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11903, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Can ChatGPT improve investment decisions? From a portfolio management perspective,

    H. Ko and J. Lee, “Can ChatGPT improve investment decisions? From a portfolio management perspective,” Finance Research Letters, vol. 64, p. 105433, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    ChatGPT-Based Investment Portfolio Selection,

    O. Romanko, A. Narayan, and R. H. Kwon, “ChatGPT-Based Investment Portfolio Selection,” Operations Research Forum, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 91, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    GPT’s idea of stock factors,

    Y . Cheng and K. Tang, “GPT’s idea of stock factors,” Quantitative Finance, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–26, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Barber and T

    B. Barber and T. Odean, ”Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors,” J. Finance, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 773–806, 2000

    work page 2000

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Institutional investors,

    A. Skiba and H. Skiba, “Institutional investors,” in Financial Behavior: Players, Services, Products, and Markets, H. K. Baker, G. Filbeck, and V . Ricciardi, Eds. New York: Oxford Academic, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    The influence of gender on the perception and response to investment risk: The case of professional investors,

    R. A. Olsen and C. M. Cox, “The influence of gender on the perception and response to investment risk: The case of professional investors,” J. Psychol. Financ. Mark., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 29–36, 2001

    2001

  3. [11]

    Tseng et al., ”Two tales of persona in LLMs: A survey of role- playing and personalization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01171, 2024

    Y .M. Tseng et al., ”Two tales of persona in LLMs: A survey of role- playing and personalization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01171, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Ex- pertPrompting: Instructing Large Language Models to be Distinguished Experts,

    B. Xu, A. Yang, J. Lin, Q. Wang, C. Zhou, Y . Zhang, and Z. Mao, “Ex- pertPrompting: Instructing Large Language Models to be Distinguished Experts,” arXiv:2305.14688, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Wu, W.-L

    C.-K. Wu, W.-L. Chen, and H.-H. Chen, ”Large language models perform diagnostic reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08922, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Improving language model negotiation with self-play and in-context learning from AI feedback,

    Y . Fu, H. Peng, T. Khot, and M. Lapata, “Improving language model negotiation with self-play and in-context learning from AI feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10142, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Can ChatGPT reduce human financial analysts’ optimistic biases?,

    X. Li, H. Feng, H. Yang, and J. Huang, “Can ChatGPT reduce human financial analysts’ optimistic biases?,” Economic and Political Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 20–33, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Analysis on Enhancing Financial Decision- making Through Prompt Engineering,

    Dhar, A. Datta and S. Das, “Analysis on Enhancing Financial Decision- making Through Prompt Engineering,” 2023 7th International Con- ference on Electronics, Materials Engineering & Nano-Technology (IEMENTech), 2023, pp. 1-5

    2023

  9. [17]

    Democratizing Financial Knowledge with ChatGPT by OpenAI: Unleashing the Power of Technology,

    T. Yue, D. Au, C.C. Au, and K. Iu, “Democratizing Financial Knowledge with ChatGPT by OpenAI: Unleashing the Power of Technology,” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    GPT-4 Technical Report,

    OpenAI, “GPT-4 Technical Report,” arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Best practices for prompt engineering with the Ope- nAI API,

    OpenAI, “Best practices for prompt engineering with the Ope- nAI API,” https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6654000-best-practices- for-prompt-engineering-with-the, Accessed on 2 May 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Prompt engineering,

    OpenAI, “Prompt engineering,” https://platform.openai.com/docs/guide- s/prompt-engineering, Accessed on 2 May 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models,

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, B. Ichter, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. Le, and D. Zhou, “Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models,” arXiv:2201.11903, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models,

    D. Zhou, N. Sch ¨arli, L. Hou, J. Wei, N. Scales, X. Wang, D. Schu- urmans, C. Cui, O. Bousquet, Q. Le, and E. Chi, “Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models,” arXiv:2205.10625, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners,

    T. Kojima, S. S. Gu, M. Reid, Y . Matsuo, and Y . Iwasawa, “Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners,” arXiv:2205.11916, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    EchoPrompt: Instructing the Model to Rephrase Queries for Improved In-context Learning,

    R. R. Mekala, Y . Razeghi, and S. Singh, “EchoPrompt: Instructing the Model to Rephrase Queries for Improved In-context Learning,” arXiv:2309.10687, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Language Models are Few-Shot Learners,

    T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-V oss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. M. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B....

    2005 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Contrastive Chain-of-Thought Prompting,

    Y . K. Chia, G. Chen, L. A. Tuan, S. Poria, and L. Bing, “Contrastive Chain-of-Thought Prompting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09277, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models,

    X. Wang, J. Wei, D. Schuurmans, Q. Le, E. Chi, S. Narang, A. Chowdhery, and D. Zhou, “Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models,” arXiv:2203.11171, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback,

    A. Madaan, N. Tandon, P. Gupta, S. Hallinan, L. Gao, S. Wiegreffe, U. Alon, N. Dziri, S. Prabhumoye, Y . Yang, S. Gupta, B. P. Majumder, K. Hermann, S. Welleck, A. Yazdanbakhsh, and P. Clark, “Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback,” arXiv:2303.17651, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models,

    S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. L. Griffiths, Y . Cao, and K. Narasimhan, “Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models,” arXiv:2305.10601, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hierarchical Narrative Analysis: Unraveling Perceptions of Generative AI,

    R. Matsuoka, H. Matsumoto, T. Yoshida, T. Watanabe, R. Kondo, R. Hisano, “Hierarchical Narrative Analysis: Unraveling Perceptions of Generative AI,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11032, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.