Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Towards Foundation-model-based Multiagent System to Accelerate AI for Social Impact

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a meta-level multi-agent system built from foundation-model agents can accelerate the entire AI-for-social-impact pipeline, so that non-profits and researchers can deploy tailored AI systems without building them…

desk verdict A clear, well-anchored vision paper for AI4SI, but the central acceleration claim is unsupported and rests on an unverified LLM formalization assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07880 v2 pith:HJQ6QXPU submitted 2024-12-10 cs.AI

Yunfan Zhao , Niclas Boehmer , Aparna Taneja , Milind Tambe This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords AIforsocialimpactfoundationmodelsmulti-agentsystemsresourceallocationrestlessbanditsLLMagentshuman-in-the-loop
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

AI for social impact today usually means building a bespoke system for each new problem, costing researchers and non-profit staff months of work. This paper argues that a meta-level team of foundation-model agents could absorb much of that work, taking a natural-language description of a social problem and producing the formal model, solution method, and evaluation for a base-level AI system. The focus is on resource-allocation problems, with restless bandits and the ARMMAN maternal-health program as running examples. The paper does not report a working system; it lays out six specific visions for how each pipeline phase could be automated, with humans required in the loop throughout. The payoff, if the visions hold, is that AI4SI stops being a handcrafted speciality and becomes configurable by non-experts.

What carries the argument

The central object is the meta-level multi-agent system built from FM-agents, agents that use foundation models, typically LLMs, to converse with stakeholders, write formal models, call tools, and run evaluations. Its job is to configure a base-level system, not to solve the problem itself. The running example uses the restless multi-armed bandit foundation model as the reusable core for resource allocation, and LLM-based agents as the layer that adapts that core to new domains. The argument's mechanism is the separation of reusable knowledge, including foundation models and the world knowledge stored in LLMs, from per-problem configuration, so that each new AI4SI application only requires finetuning rather than construction from scratch.

What would settle it

Give an FM-agent the raw transcripts of real stakeholder interviews from an existing AI4SI project, such as the ARMMAN collaboration, and ask it to produce the formal model alone. If the generated model omits constraints that human experts identified, or adds actions or rewards that contradict the program's actual operations, then the acceleration claim fails, because the human would still have to redo the formulation step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that foundation-model-based agents operating at a meta level can accelerate the entire AI4SI pipeline rather than being inserted at any single step. It distinguishes a base-level system, the deployed solver on the ground, from a meta-level system that helps build and adapt it. The meta-level agents are to (Vision 1) formulate real-world problems into formal settings such as MDPs; (Vision 2) draw on a foundation model for resource allocation that can be fine-tuned to new scenarios; (Vision 3) design communication and collaboration among base-level agents; (Vision 4) enforce fairness constraints in the generated designs; (Vision 5) run LLM-based simulations of human behavior to evaluate solutions; and (Vision 6) monitor deployed models for distribution shift with human feedback. The paper asserts these capabilities are within reach because the component technologies already exist, and it consistently frames the meta-level system as an accelerator, not a replacement, for existing optimization tools and human oversight.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that LLM-based agents can reliably turn natural-language descriptions from stakeholders into correct, complete formal models such as MDPs, without missing constraints or inventing details; every later phase depends on that step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the meta-level system works, a non-profit with no AI staff could go from a problem description to a deployable base-level system by conversing with FM-agents.
  • A single foundation model for restless bandit resource allocation could be fine-tuned across many social-impact applications, spreading development costs.
  • LLM-based simulations could replace hand-built simulation studies for evaluation, lowering a major barrier to deployment.
  • Fairness could be baked into generated designs via explicit constraints or objectives, rather than added after the fact.
  • Human-in-the-loop monitoring and fine-tuning would let deployed systems stay aligned as user behavior shifts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The meta-level pattern is not limited to resource allocation; the same formulation-design-evaluation loop could be tested on other AI4SI families such as conservation planning or public-safety resource deployment.
  • The paper's own weakest step suggests a concrete benchmark: collecting a suite of natural-language AI4SI problem descriptions paired with expert-built formal models, which would let the community measure whether FM-agents actually reach reliable formalization.
  • If FM-agents can produce formal models with verifiable correctness, the bottleneck shifts from formulation to data: the system would still need trustworthy data on agent behavior and rewards, and the paper does not address where that data comes from.
  • A successful meta-level system would change the AI4SI research agenda: publications would increasingly report configuration choices and evaluation pipelines generated by agents, raising new questions about reproducibility and accountability.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a meta-level multi-agent system built on foundation models to accelerate the development of base-level AI4SI systems, focusing on resource allocation problems. It defines meta-level and base-level systems, outlines three pipeline phases (formulation, solution design, testing/deployment), and presents six concrete research visions: automated problem formulation (Vision 1), a foundation model for resource allocation (Vision 2), collaboration design (Vision 3), fairness (Vision 4), LLM-based simulation (Vision 5), and real-time monitoring with human feedback (Vision 6). The paper uses the ARMMAN maternal-health program as a running example and emphasizes human-in-the-loop operation and ethical considerations. No empirical validation, pilot study, or formal proof is provided; the contribution is a research agenda.

Significance. If realized, the proposed system could substantially lower the labor and expertise barriers in AI4SI work, and the paper's decomposition into six concrete visions is a useful framing for future research. The anchoring in a deployed system (ARMMAN) and the identification of relevant prior work, such as pretrained restless bandits, lend concreteness. However, the central claim that the meta-level system will accelerate AI4SI development is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the most load-bearing capability—reliable translation of stakeholder language into formal models—is left without supporting evidence or a verification protocol. The paper is best viewed as a position statement that could guide a research program.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Vision 1] The reliability of FM-agents in translating stakeholder natural-language descriptions into correct and complete formal models (e.g., MDPs) is load-bearing for all six visions, since every downstream phase operates on this formalization. No evidence, pilot, or verification protocol is provided to show that FM-agents can do this without omitting constraints or hallucinating components. The authors themselves acknowledge in Section 4.1 that FM-agents may not 'easily understand demographic information available in text or abstract fairness concepts,' and the same caution applies a fortiori to problem formulation. An incomplete or incorrect formalization would silently invalidate all subsequent steps. The manuscript should either specify a concrete human-in-the-loop verification protocol with explicit checks against stakeholder statements, or explicitly reframe Vision 1 as an open research challenge with a proposed evaluation benchmark.
  2. [Section 1, paragraphs 4-5 and Abstract] The central claim that the meta-level system 'will accelerate the process' is never operationalized. No metrics such as time-to-deployment, expert-hours saved, correctness rate of generated formalizations, or cost comparisons are defined, and no baseline is proposed. As a result, the claimed benefit is not falsifiable. The manuscript should include an explicit evaluation framework—at least as a proposed methodology—that would allow the acceleration claim to be tested in future work, for instance by comparing the pipeline with and without FM-agents on a set of benchmark AI4SI problems.
  3. [Section 5, Vision 5] The paper asserts that LLM-based agents can 'build a powerful simulator that serves as a good proxy of real-world deployment environment' and cites prior LLM simulation work from other fields (education, healthcare, social science). However, AI4SI deployments are high-stakes and often require detailed, possibly regulatory-grade simulation studies; no evidence or argument is given that LLM simulations can meet this standard in AI4SI contexts. This vision should be hedged as an open research question, with a discussion of how such simulators would be validated against real-world behavioral data and what failure modes are anticipated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Running Example 1] There is a spacing error in 'the MDP .' (a space before the period); the sentence should end with 'the MDP.'
  2. [Section 4.1] The phrase 'due to the fact that AI may not easily understand...' is ambiguous; the intended subject should be 'FM-agents' or 'LLMs' rather than 'AI' generically.
  3. [Sections 3 and 5] In-text citations 'Zhao et al. [a]' and 'Zhao et al. [b]' do not correspond to any labeled entries in the reference list; the reference list contains multiple Zhao et al. entries but none are marked with '[a]' or '[b]'. These citations should be disambiguated or matched to the correct references.
  4. [General] The paper does not discuss the computational and financial overhead of running the meta-level FM-agents themselves, even though the central claim is about reducing overall cost; a brief acknowledgment that this overhead is an open question would improve the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a self-contained position/vision paper with no derivation chain or fitted prediction to reduce.

full rationale

This is a vision/position paper, not a derivation or empirical study. It proposes a meta-level FM-agent system to accelerate AI4SI development and states six forward-looking research visions (e.g., Vision 1: 'Employ FM-agents to (i) identify the base-level agents involved, (ii) find an adequate formal description for the setting (e.g. as a Markov Decision Process), and (iii) define key components of the settings'). There are no equations whose outputs equal inputs, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no benchmark results that are forced by construction. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Zhao et al. 2024a for a pretrained restless bandit model, and other prior work by the authors) are used as illustrative examples of existing resource-allocation foundations, not as load-bearing proofs of the proposal's viability. The central claim is explicitly conditional and aspirational, framed as 'We envision' and 'We believe promising progress can be made,' so there is no claimed derivation whose conclusion is already present in its premises. Even the weakest assumption, that FM-agents can reliably translate natural-language stakeholder input into correct MDPs, is an open empirical risk, not a circularity. The paper does not present that reliability as an established fact; it proposes future work. Consequently, there is no self-definitional step, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renamed known result. The circularity burden is therefore not met, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central proposal rests on several untested assumptions about LLM capabilities and simulation fidelity. No free parameters are fitted, and no new physical or computational entities are introduced beyond standard LLM agents and the conceptual meta-level architecture.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LLM-based FM-agents can reliably translate natural-language stakeholder descriptions into correct formal models, such as MDPs, and design solution methods.
    Vision 1 and Vision 2 assume this capability without empirical support. If LLMs hallucinate or omit constraints, the base-level system will be incorrect.
  • domain assumption LLM-based simulation can serve as a good proxy for real-world deployment when evaluating AI4SI systems.
    Vision 5 assumes LLM simulators are accurate enough for evaluation. The paper cites prior work on LLM simulations but does not establish validity in the AI4SI setting.
  • domain assumption Human-in-the-loop oversight can effectively catch and correct errors made by FM-agents during problem formulation and design.
    The paper repeatedly states that human-in-the-loop is required but does not analyze whether non-AI-expert stakeholders can meaningfully supervise the meta-system.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Foundation-model-based Multiagent System to Accelerate AI for Social Impact." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HJQ6QXPU

@misc{pith2026241207880,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Foundation-model-based Multiagent System to Accelerate AI for Social Impact},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HJQ6QXPU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07880}
}
read the original abstract

AI for social impact (AI4SI) offers significant potential for addressing complex societal challenges in areas such as public health, agriculture, education, conservation, and public safety. However, existing AI4SI research is often labor-intensive and resource-demanding, limiting its accessibility and scalability; the standard approach is to design a (base-level) system tailored to a specific AI4SI problem. We propose the development of a novel meta-level multi-agent system designed to accelerate the development of such base-level systems, thereby reducing the computational cost and the burden on social impact domain experts and AI researchers. Leveraging advancements in foundation models and large language models, our proposed approach focuses on resource allocation problems providing help across the full AI4SI pipeline from problem formulation over solution design to impact evaluation. We highlight the ethical considerations and challenges inherent in deploying such systems and emphasize the importance of a human-in-the-loop approach to ensure the responsible and effective application of AI systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07880 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our proposed AI for social impact (AI4SI) workflow. The three key phases, formulating the problem, designing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

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. An Intelligent Fault Self-Healing Mechanism for Cloud AI Systems via Integration of Large Language Models and Deep Reinforcement Learning

    cs.AI 2025-06 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    An LLM-plus-deep-RL hybrid is proposed for cloud fault self-healing, claiming 37% faster recovery on unknown faults with weak experimental documentation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [4]

    Internet of agents: Weaving a web of heterogeneous agents for collaborative intelligence

    Weize Chen, Ziming You, Ran Li, Yitong Guan, Chen Qian, Chenyang Zhao, Cheng Yang, Ruobing Xie, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Internet of agents: Weaving a web of heterogeneous agents for collaborative intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07061,

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Large language model based multi- agents: A survey of progress and challenges

    T Guo, X Chen, Y Wang, R Chang, S Pei, NV Chawla, O Wiest, and X Zhang. Large language model based multi- agents: A survey of progress and challenges. In33rd Inter- national Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2024). IJCAI; Cornell arxiv,

    work page 2024

  3. [10]

    TeacherLM: Teaching to Fish Rather Than Giving the Fish, Language Modeling Likewise

    Nan He, Hanyu Lai, Chenyang Zhao, Zirui Cheng, Junting Pan, Ruoyu Qin, Ruofan Lu, Rui Lu, Yunchen Zhang, Gangming Zhao, et al. Teacherlm: Teaching to fish rather than giving the fish, language modeling likewise. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19019,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [11]

    Minicpm: Unveiling the potential of small language models with scalable training strategies

    Shengding Hu, Yuge Tu, Xu Han, Chaoqun He, Ganqu Cui, Xiang Long, Zhi Zheng, Yewei Fang, Yuxiang Huang, Weilin Zhao, et al. Minicpm: Unveiling the potential of small language models with scalable training strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06395,

    arXiv

  5. [12]

    Rea- soningrank: Teaching student models to rank through reasoning-based knowledge distillation

    Yuelyu Ji, Zhuochun Li, Rui Meng, and Daqing He. Rea- soningrank: Teaching student models to rank through reasoning-based knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05168,

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    Mitigating the risk of health inequity exacerbated by large language models

    Yuelyu Ji, Wenhe Ma, Sonish Sivarajkumar, Hang Zhang, Eugene Mathew Sadhu, Zhuochun Li, Xizhi Wu, Shyam Visweswaran, and Yanshan Wang. Mitigating the risk of health inequity exacerbated by large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05180,

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    Assertion de- tection in clinical natural language processing using large language models

    Yuelyu Ji, Zeshui Yu, and Yanshan Wang. Assertion de- tection in clinical natural language processing using large language models. In 2024 IEEE 12th International Con- ference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI), pages 242–247,

    work page 2024

  8. [15]

    Foundation models for mining 5.0: Challenges, frameworks, and opportunities

    Yuchen Li, Siyu Teng, Lingxi Li, Zhe Xuanyuan, and Long Chen. Foundation models for mining 5.0: Challenges, frameworks, and opportunities. In 2023 IEEE 3rd Inter- national Conference on Digital Twins and Parallel Intelli- gence (DTPI), pages 1–6,

    work page 2023

Show all 35 references
  1. [16]

    Focused react: Improving react through reiterate and early stop

    Shuoqiu Li, Han Xu, and Haipeng Chen. Focused react: Improving react through reiterate and early stop. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10779,

    arXiv

  2. [17]

    Coem: cross-modal embedding for metacell identification

    Haiyi Mao, Minxue Jia, Jason Xiaotian Dou, Haotian Zhang, and Panayiotis V Benos. Coem: cross-modal embedding for metacell identification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.07734,

    arXiv

  3. [18]

    Selective interven- tion planning using restless multi-armed bandits to im- prove maternal and child health outcomes

    Siddharth Nishtala, Lovish Madaan, Aditya Mate, Har- shavardhan Kamarthi, Anirudh Grama, Divy Thakkar, Dhyanesh Narayanan, Suresh Chaudhary, Neha Madhi- walla, Ramesh Padmanabhan, et al. Selective interven- tion planning using restless multi-armed bandits to im- prove maternal...

    arXiv

  4. [19]

    E-tamba: Efficient transformer-mamba layer transplantation

    Dazhi Peng and Hangrui Cao. E-tamba: Efficient transformer-mamba layer transplantation. InNeurIPS 2024 Workshop on Fine-Tuning in Modern Machine Learning: Principles and Scalability,

    2024

  5. [21]

    Improving the prediction of in- dividual engagement in recommendations using cognitive models

    Roderick Seow, Yunfan Zhao, Duncan Wood, Milind Tambe, and Cleotilde Gonzalez. Improving the prediction of in- dividual engagement in recommendations using cognitive models. Workshop on Health Recommender Systems co- located with ACM RecSys 2024,

    2024

  6. [22]

    Artificial intelligence for social good: A survey

    Zheyuan Ryan Shi, Claire Wang, and Fei Fang. Artificial intelligence for social good: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.01818,

    2001 arXiv

  7. [23]

    Prompt2model: Gen- erating deployable models from natural language instruc- tions

    Vijay Viswanathan, Chenyang Zhao, Amanda Bertsch, Tong- shuang Wu, and Graham Neubig. Prompt2model: Gen- erating deployable models from natural language instruc- tions. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demon- str...

    2023

  8. [24]

    Efficient evo- lutionary search over chemical space with large language models

    Haorui Wang, Marta Skreta, Cher-Tian Ser, Wenhao Gao, Lingkai Kong, Felix Streith-Kalthoff, Chenru Duan, Yuchen Zhuang, Yue Yu, Yanqiao Zhu, et al. Efficient evo- lutionary search over chemical space with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16976,

    arXiv

  9. [25]

    Large language models for robotics: Op- portunities, challenges, and perspectives

    Jiaqi Wang, Zihao Wu, Yiwei Li, Hanqi Jiang, Peng Shu, Enze Shi, Huawen Hu, Chong Ma, Yiheng Liu, Xuhui Wang, et al. Large language models for robotics: Op- portunities, challenges, and perspectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04334,

    arXiv

  10. [26]

    Ecg unveiled: Analysis of client re-identification risks in real-world ecg datasets

    Ziyu Wang, Anil Kanduri, Seyed Amir Hossein Aqajari, Salar Jafarlou, Sanaz R Mousavi, Pasi Liljeberg, Shaista Malik, and Amir M Rahmani. Ecg unveiled: Analysis of client re-identification risks in real-world ecg datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10228,

    arXiv

  11. [27]

    Healthq: Unveiling questioning capabilities of llm chains in healthcare conversations

    Ziyu Wang, Hao Li, Di Huang, and Amir M Rah- mani. Healthq: Unveiling questioning capabilities of llm chains in healthcare conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19487,

    arXiv

  12. [28]

    Configurable foundation models: Building llms from a modular perspective

    Chaojun Xiao, Zhengyan Zhang, Chenyang Song, Dazhi Jiang, Feng Yao, Xu Han, Xiaozhi Wang, Shuo Wang, Yufei Huang, Guanyu Lin, et al. Configurable foundation models: Building llms from a modular perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02877,

    arXiv

  13. [29]

    Provably efficient reinforcement learning for adversarial restless multi-armed bandits with unknown transitions and bandit feedback

    Guojun Xiong and Jian Li. Provably efficient reinforcement learning for adversarial restless multi-armed bandits with unknown transitions and bandit feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00950,

    arXiv

  14. [30]

    Playing repeated security games with no prior knowledge

    Haifeng Xu, Long Tran-Thanh, and Nick Jennings. Playing repeated security games with no prior knowledge. In AA- MAS’16: Proceedings of the 2016 International Confer- ence on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems , pages 104–112. ACM Press,

    2016

  15. [32]

    Can speculative sampling accelerate react without compromis- ing reasoning quality? In The Second Tiny Papers Track at ICLR 2024,

    Han Xu, Jingyang Ye, Yutong Li, and Haipeng Chen. Can speculative sampling accelerate react without compromis- ing reasoning quality? In The Second Tiny Papers Track at ICLR 2024,

    2024

  16. [33]

    Restful-llama: Connecting user queries to restful apis

    Han Xu, Ruining Zhao, Jindong Wang, and Haipeng Chen. Restful-llama: Connecting user queries to restful apis. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track , pages 1433–1443,

    2024

  17. [34]

    Fa* ir: A fair top-k ranking algorithm

    Meike Zehlike, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo, Sara Ha- jian, Mohamed Megahed, and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. Fa* ir: A fair top-k ranking algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 1569–1578,

    2017

  18. [35]

    The bandit whisperer: Com- munication learning for restless bandits

    Yunfan Zhao, Tonghan Wang, Dheeraj Nagaraj, Aparna Taneja, and Milind Tambe. The bandit whisperer: Com- munication learning for restless bandits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05686, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [1988]

    The deskilling of domain expertise in ai development

    Nithya Sambasivan and Rajesh Veeraraghavan. The deskilling of domain expertise in ai development. In Pro- ceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–14,

    2022

  20. [2003]

    Combining diverse information for coordinated action: Stochastic ban- dit algorithms for heterogeneous agents

    Lucia Gordon, Esther Rolf, and Milind Tambe. Combining diverse information for coordinated action: Stochastic ban- dit algorithms for heterogeneous agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03405,

    arXiv

  21. [2016]

    Ranked prioritization of groups in combinatorial bandit allocation

    Lily Xu, Arpita Biswas, Fei Fang, and Milind Tambe. Ranked prioritization of groups in combinatorial bandit allocation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05659,

    arXiv

  22. [2018]

    On the opportunities and risks of foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258,

    Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Alt- man, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258,

    arXiv

  23. [2020]

    Enhancing perfor- mance and user engagement in everyday stress monitoring: A context-aware active reinforcement learning approach

    Seyed Amir Hossein Aqajari, Ziyu Wang, Ali Tazarv, Sina Labbaf, Salar Jafarlou, Brenda Nguyen, Nikil Dutt, Marco Levorato, and Amir M Rahmani. Enhancing perfor- mance and user engagement in everyday stress monitoring: A context-aware active reinforcement learning approach. arX...

    arXiv

  24. [2021]

    Envisioning communities: a participatory approach towards ai for social good

    Elizabeth Bondi, Lily Xu, Diana Acosta-Navas, and Jack- son A Killian. Envisioning communities: a participatory approach towards ai for social good. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages 425–436,

    2021

  25. [2022]

    Learning more effective cell representations efficiently

    Jason Xiaotian Dou, Minxue Jia, Nika Zaslavsky, Mark Ebeid, Runxue Bao, Shiyi Zhang, Ke Ni, Paul Pu Liang, Haiyi Mao, and Zhi-Hong Mao. Learning more effective cell representations efficiently. In NeurIPS 2022 Workshop on Learning Meaningful Representations of Life,

    2022

  26. [2023]

    Estimate-then-optimize versus integrated- estimationoptimization: A stochastic dominance perspec- tive

    Adam N Elmachtoub, Henry Lam, Haofeng Zhang, and Yunfan Zhao. Estimate-then-optimize versus integrated- estimationoptimization: A stochastic dominance perspec- tive. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06833,

    arXiv

  27. [2024]

    Compost: Characterizing and evaluating caricature in llm simula- tions

    Myra Cheng, Tiziano Piccardi, and Diyi Yang. Compost: Characterizing and evaluating caricature in llm simula- tions. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 10853– 10875,

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.