Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

A RAG-Based Multi-Agent LLM System for Natural Hazard Resilience and Adaptation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A profile-first multi-agent AI system claims to beat generic LLMs on local wildfire risk.

desk verdict A careful, useful applied-systems paper whose 'significantly outperforms' claim is undercut by a confounded baseline comparison; the system itself and its transparency deserve a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17200 v1 pith:MZ5C5DWV submitted 2025-04-24 cs.CL

Yangxinyu Xie , Bowen Jiang , Tanwi Mallick , Joshua David Bergerson , John K. Hutchison , Duane R. Verner , Jordan Branham , M. Ross Alexander
show 5 more authors
Robert B. Ross Yan Feng Leslie-Anne Levy Weijie Su Camillo J. Taylor
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords wildfireriskassessmentretrieval-augmentedgenerationmulti-agentLLMsystemuserpersonalizationnaturalhazarddecisionsupportclimateadaptationevaluation
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

WildfireGPT is a proof-of-concept system that combines retrieval-augmented generation with a multi-agent design: a user profile agent interviews the user about profession, location, time horizon, and concerns; a planning agent turns that into an analysis plan; and an analyst agent pulls location-specific climate projections, wildfire records, census data, and scientific literature to answer. The paper's central claim is that this profile-first architecture gives wildfire decision support that generic LLM tools and climate-specific chatbots do not: in ten expert-led case studies it retrieved data correctly in 9 of 10 location-specific prompts, matched location and data accuracy at levels the alternatives missed, and generated recommendations that domain experts rated highly on relevance, logical entailment, and accessibility. A sympathetic reader would care because professionals such as planners and infrastructure operators need locally grounded, actionable answers rather than generic summaries, and the paper argues the missing piece is eliciting the user's context before retrieval. The paper itself reports deployment-level failure modes in its GPT-4 backbone—hallucinated typos causing invalid function calls and a hallucinated 'conversation complete' that stalls the workflow—which the authors flag as needing mitigation.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a three-agent workflow coordinated by a task orchestrator: the user profile agent turns free-form answers into a structured checklist of profession, concern, location, time horizon, and scope; the planning agent proposes a transparent analysis plan for user approval; and the analyst agent then executes retrieval within a 36-kilometer radius of the confirmed coordinates, combining Fire Weather Index projections, recent wildfire incident records (2015–2023), paleofire history, census block-group socioeconomic data, and abstracts from a curated wildfire literature corpus. Data retrieval is grounded by a coordinate-to-grid mapping for gridded climate data and by interactive maps that let users verify locations; literature retrieval uses semantic embeddings on abstracts and verifies digital object identifiers before presenting the top three papers. The profile is the load-bearing constraint: it sets which datasets, which search queries, and which recommendation categories the analyst agent uses.

What would settle it

Run the same 20 prompts and a hold-out set of new queries through WildfireGPT, the climate-chatbot baseline, and the web-search answer engine, then have an independent panel of emergency managers and planners score responses blind (not knowing which system produced them) for data accuracy, location specificity, and usefulness; the paper's central claim would collapse if WildfireGPT no longer leads on data accuracy or if the panel cannot distinguish its responses at better than chance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a multi-agent RAG system that builds a user profile before retrieving anything can close the personalization and localization gaps of LLM decision support. The load-bearing comparison is a modular evaluation of 20 prompts drawn from the case studies: for data-analysis tasks WildfireGPT met the data-provision criterion in 9/10 prompts versus 5/10 for the IPCC-grounded baseline chatbot and 7/10 for the web-search answer engine baseline; achieved location specificity in 9/9 assessable cases versus 0/6 and 4/9; and got data values right in 8/9 cases against the web-search engine's 2/8. On evidence-based question answering it matched or exceeded the baselines on citation completeness and source authority, and kept contextual relevance in 10/10 cases. A two-phase ablation with the same prompt across five professions shows recommendations and literature searches change with the user's role, and expert evaluations reported high relevance (roughly 96–100 percent across categories), entailment (92.86 percent), accessibility (92–99 percent), and strong fidelity of reported statistics to retrieved sources. The paper also reports that an LLM-as-a-judge agreed with human experts only moderately (63–75 percent across criteria), so the human evaluation remains essential.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on ten expert-led case studies and twenty comparison prompts being representative of real wildfire decision work, and on those experts—many from the same laboratory as the authors—rating the system fairly; if either fails, the reported outperformance may not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ten-case evaluation holds up, the practical fix for location-blind LLM answers is not better prompting but a pre-retrieval user-profile step that fixes location, timeline, and professional scope.
  • Systems like WildfireGPT can deliver correct numbers from gridded climate projections where web-search and IPCC-anchored chatbots cannot, because direct coordinate-to-grid retrieval replaces reliance on public text.
  • The ablation implies professional identity materially changes the literature that gets retrieved and the recommendations that get generated, so evaluation of hazard LLMs should include profile-varying prompts, not just one-off questions.
  • The moderate LLM-as-a-judge agreement means automated scaling of evaluation is not yet sufficient for quality assurance; human or hybrid evaluation is still needed.
  • The reported GPT-4 hallucinations mean the orchestration layer remains brittle, so a deployment-ready system must add robustness checks around function calling and module transitions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the system's most transferable lesson is its handling of data gaps—explicitly saying data are unavailable and proposing alternatives—which mitigates the 'confidently wrong' failure mode; this could be tested as a standalone component in other domain assistants.
  • My inference: because the ablation held location and timeline fixed while changing only profession, an untested risk is over-personalization—the profile may steer retrieval toward profession-specific literature and away from the strongest local evidence; a prompt-level test varying profile accuracy would reveal this.
  • My inference: the fixed 36-kilometer retrieval radius is an unexamined parameter; varying the radius with fuel type, terrain, or fire spread potential could change both data values and recommendations, so the radius is a natural sensitivity-analysis target.
  • My inference: the one reported data failure (the Denver case, where RCP 8.5 was requested but RCP 4.5 was used without disclosure) suggests that a data-coverage disclosure step—flagging when the requested variant is absent—would be a cheap, high-value extension.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents WildfireGPT, a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) based multi-agent LLM system for wildfire risk decision support. The system uses a user-profile agent to collect stakeholder background and location, a planning agent to design an analysis plan, and an analyst agent to retrieve and interpret geospatial data (ClimRR fire weather indices, NIFC incident records, paleofire records, census data) and a curated scientific literature corpus. Evaluation is conducted through ten expert-led case studies with domain experts from Argonne National Laboratory, including a modular comparison against ChatClimate and Perplexity AI (Tables 4 and 5), a two-phase personalization ablation, expert ratings of relevance/entailment/accessibility, an LLM-as-a-judge agreement study, and fidelity checks of reported statistics and citations. The central claim is that WildfireGPT 'significantly outperforms existing LLM-based solutions for decision support.'

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, WildfireGPT would be a valuable proof of concept for human-centered, data-grounded LLM decision support in natural hazard management. The paper has notable strengths: the system architecture is clearly described, the code is publicly available, data sources are identified with access links, the fidelity verification methodology (matching reported statistics to retrieved data and computing SBERT similarity) is transparent, and the personalization ablation provides useful qualitative evidence that user profiling changes outputs. The three-stage evaluation framework is a constructive step beyond lexical similarity metrics for domain-specific conversational systems. However, the significance of the claim is currently weakened by the uncontrolled comparative evaluation and the small, institutionally internal expert sample.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results: Comparative Evaluation against Baseline Models, Tables 4 and 5] The comparative evidence does not support the abstract's claim of 'significantly outperforms existing LLM-based solutions' as stated. This is a system-level comparison in which WildfireGPT is given direct access to curated local databases (ClimRR FWI projections, NIFC incident records, paleofire data, ACS census data) and a custom coordinate-to-grid mapping pipeline, while ChatClimate has no file-upload mechanism at all and Perplexity AI receives data files only in selected prompts. Table 4 makes the asymmetry explicit: location specificity is 9/9 for WildfireGPT but 0/6 for ChatClimate (because no data was provided) and 4/7 for Perplexity, and data accuracy is evaluated only for prompts where data files were available. Thus the observed advantage in data retrieval largely measures access to bespoke data plumbing rather than the intrinsic multi-agent RAG design. The paper should either reframe the comparison as 'complete system versus off-the-shelf tools' with the limitation clearly stated, or provide a controlled ablation in which the baselines are given the same retrieval and mapping utilities.
  2. [Abstract and Results: Overall Success Rates in Tables 4 and 5] The word 'significantly' is not supported by any statistical test. The data-retrieval comparison uses 10 prompts and the evidence-based QA comparison uses 10 prompts, with no confidence intervals, exact binomial tests, or inter-rater reliability measures. Moreover, the evidence-based QA results in Table 5 are mixed: Perplexity AI achieves 10/10 on external knowledge and 10/10 on citation provision, while WildfireGPT achieves 7/10 and 7/7, respectively; WildfireGPT leads only on source authority (7/7 vs 6/10). The claim should be tempered to 'performed favorably in this small qualitative comparison' or supplemented with appropriate statistical inference.
  3. [Results: Domain Expert Evaluation, Tables 8 and 9] The domain expert evaluation is conducted by experts from Argonne National Laboratory, the same institution as several of the authors, and the acknowledgments note that M. R. Alexander, J. Branham, and Y. Feng 'contributed significantly to the case studies.' This creates a potential independence concern that is not addressed in the manuscript. The paper should include a statement on how the evaluation protocol prevented bias (e.g., whether evaluators had access to the system's design choices, whether interactions were facilitated by a neutral third party) and should acknowledge this as a limitation with implications for the strength of the claims.
  4. [Supplementary Materials: Information Fidelity of WildfireGPT's Reported Wildfire Statistics] The supplementary fidelity check verifies only that reported statistics match the retrieved data and that cited papers are among those retrieved; it does not independently validate the accuracy of the underlying data or the retrieved literature. The paper acknowledges this in the footnote, but the main text's claim of 'data accuracy' (Table 4) should be consistently qualified as 'agreement with the reference dataset provided to the system' rather than external correctness, to avoid overstating the evaluation's scope.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 5 title] The heading 'evidence-based question qnswering' contains a typo and should read 'question answering.'
  2. [Throughout] Several minor typographical issues appear: 'V A' should be 'VA', 'scop' should be 'scope' in the Methodology section, and 'Materias' should be 'Materials' in the Supplementary Materials.
  3. [Methodology: Analyst Agent] The literature retrieval uses a top-k nearest neighbor search, but the value of k is not reported; please specify the parameter (e.g., k=3) for reproducibility. Similarly, the 36 km analysis radius appears as a design choice that should be justified or stated as a free parameter.
  4. [Results: Personalization] The personalization ablation is based on a single prompt and one location (Covington, VA). The authors should note that the generalizability of the ablation across locations and topics is not yet demonstrated.
  5. [Results: LLM-as-a-Judge, Table 10] The agreement rates (relevance 62.99%, entailment 75.00%, accessibility 66.67%) are reported without an agreement metric such as Cohen's kappa or a discussion of chance agreement. Adding a chance-corrected measure would make the assessment more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the system claims are empirical and the one potentially circular-looking metric is explicitly disclosed as information fidelity, not independent validation.

full rationale

I walked the paper's claimed derivation chain: WildfireGPT is an engineered system, and its central claims are empirical evaluations (ten expert-led case studies, modular comparison against ChatClimate and Perplexity, a personalization ablation, fidelity checks, and LLM-as-a-judge agreement) rather than results derived from fitted parameters or from an invoked uniqueness theorem. There is no equation in which an output quantity is defined in terms of the quantity it is said to predict, and no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction. The closest candidate is the 'data accuracy' metric in Table 4, which compares WildfireGPT's reported values against the reference datasets that the system itself retrieves; however, the supplementary materials explicitly state that 'information fidelity between the retrieved sources and WildfireGPT's outputs is not the same as independently validating claims against the broader scientific literature,' so the paper discloses the metric's limited scope instead of smuggling it in as independent confirmation. The personalization ablation shows outputs conditioned on user profiles, and the paper even states this alignment 'is by design,' which is a transparent description of the system's intended behavior, not a circular prediction. The self-citations that exist — the CIACC literature corpus [59, 60] and the authors' earlier survey [87] — are used as data resources and background references, not as load-bearing justifications for the paper's conclusions; no alternative is ruled out by an author-imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz is smuggled via citation. Concerns about evaluator independence (Argonne experts rating a system built partly at Argonne), uncontrolled baseline access to curated data, and the non-statistical use of the word 'significantly' are legitimate evaluation-validity or correctness risks, but they are not instances of the derivation reducing to its own inputs by construction. Under the stated rules, such concerns do not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on assumptions about the reliability of the underlying LLM, the adequacy of the embedding model, and the representativeness of the literature corpus. These are not mathematical axioms but domain assumptions that could affect outcomes.

free parameters (2)
  • Literature retrieval top-k = 3
    The analyst agent retrieves the top 3 most relevant papers. This number is chosen by the authors; performance may vary with k.
  • Analysis radius = 36 km
    Data within a 36 km radius of the user's location is retrieved. This is a hand-chosen distance with no stated basis.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption GPT-4 Turbo reliably follows function-calling instructions and multi-agent orchestration.
    The entire system depends on the closed model's ability to execute functions and transition between agents without error, despite the paper reporting hallucinations and failed transitions.
  • domain assumption The all-MiniLM-L6-v2 sentence embedding model is adequate for semantic literature retrieval.
    The analyst agent uses these embeddings for k-NN search; the paper itself notes retrieval mismatches due to insufficient domain-specific nuance.
  • domain assumption The CIACC literature corpus is representative of relevant wildfire science.
    The system's literature grounding is limited to this corpus; the paper acknowledges the finite scope restricts retrieval for niche queries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A RAG-Based Multi-Agent LLM System for Natural Hazard Resilience and Adaptation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZ5C5DWV

@misc{pith2026250417200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A RAG-Based Multi-Agent LLM System for Natural Hazard Resilience and Adaptation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZ5C5DWV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17200}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are a transformational capability at the frontier of artificial intelligence and machine learning that can support decision-makers in addressing pressing societal challenges such as extreme natural hazard events. As generalized models, LLMs often struggle to provide context-specific information, particularly in areas requiring specialized knowledge. In this work we propose a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)-based multi-agent LLM system to support analysis and decision-making in the context of natural hazards and extreme weather events. As a proof of concept, we present WildfireGPT, a specialized system focused on wildfire hazards. The architecture employs a user-centered, multi-agent design to deliver tailored risk insights across diverse stakeholder groups. By integrating natural hazard and extreme weather projection data, observational datasets, and scientific literature through an RAG framework, the system ensures both the accuracy and contextual relevance of the information it provides. Evaluation across ten expert-led case studies demonstrates that WildfireGPT significantly outperforms existing LLM-based solutions for decision support.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17200 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of WildfireGPT architecture comprising an LLM agent integrated with the multi-agent RAG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Interactive visualizations in the WildfireGPT user experience. This example is taken from the case study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ecosystem Fire Management: WildfireGPT demonstrates its ability to integrate data analysis and domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Wildland Urban Interface Impact: WildfireGPT demonstrates its effectiveness in addressing the complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of the WildfireGPT user experience. The screenshots are taken from one of the case studies themed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Private Property Protection: WildfireGPT showcases its ability to provide tailored advice to individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Infrastructure Wildfire Risk: WildfireGPT demonstrates its ability to provide fresh perspectives and consider [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Community Hazard Mitigation Planning: WildfireGPT demonstrates its ability to generate nuanced and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. GeoGrid-Bench: Can Foundation Models Understand Multimodal Gridded Geo-Spatial Data?

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GeoGrid-Bench evaluates 11 foundation models on 3,200 expert-curated questions about gridded climate data across 16 variables, finding vision-language models strongest and code generation weakest.

  2. CangLing-KnowFlow: A Unified Knowledge-and-Flow-fused Agent for Comprehensive Remote Sensing Applications

    cs.AI 2025-12 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    CangLing-KnowFlow combines a procedural knowledge base, dynamic workflow repair, and memory to beat ReAct/Reflexion on remote-sensing workflow tasks, but the benchmark is drawn from the same tasks used to build its kn...

  3. Comparative Evaluation of Prompting and Fine-Tuning for Applying Large Language Models to Grid-Structured Geospatial Data

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning a small LLM on 100 self-built geospatial weather examples produced a reported perfect score on a 12-example test set, far above the prompt-only model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Climate change impact on flood and extreme precipitation increases with water availability

    Hossein Tabari. Climate change impact on flood and extreme precipitation increases with water availability. Scientific Reports, 10(1):13768, 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    Over half of known human pathogenic diseases can be aggravated by climate change

    Camilo Mora, Tristan McKenzie, Isabella M Gaw, Jacqueline M Dean, Hannah von Hammerstein, Tabatha A Knudson, Renee O Setter, Charlotte Z Smith, Kira M Webster, Jonathan A Patz, et al. Over half of known human pathogenic diseases can be aggravated by climate change. Nature Climate Change, 12(9):869–875, 2022. 24 A RAG-Based Multi-Agent LLM System for Natur...

    2022

  3. [3]

    Attribution of extreme weather events in the context of climate change

    National Academies of Sciences, Division on Earth, Life Studies, Board on Atmospheric Sciences, Committee on Extreme Weather Events, and Climate Change Attribution. Attribution of extreme weather events in the context of climate change. National Academies Press, 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    Impacts of future weather and climate extremes on united states infrastructure: Assessing and prioritizing adaptation actions

    Task Committee on Future Weather, Climate Extremes, Mari R Tye, and Jason P Giovannettone. Impacts of future weather and climate extremes on united states infrastructure: Assessing and prioritizing adaptation actions. American Society of Civil Engineers Reston, V A, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    OxyGenerator: reconstructing global ocean deoxygenation over a century with deep learning

    Bin Lu, Ze Zhao, Luyu Han, Xiaoying Gan, Yuntao Zhou, Lei Zhou, Luoyi Fu, Xinbing Wang, Chenghu Zhou, and Jing Zhang. OxyGenerator: reconstructing global ocean deoxygenation over a century with deep learning. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Climate change 2021: The physical science basis

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Early emergence of anthropogenically forced heat waves in the western United States and Great Lakes

    Hosmay Lopez, Robert West, Shenfu Dong, Gustavo Goni, Ben Kirtman, Sang-Ki Lee, and Robert Atlas. Early emergence of anthropogenically forced heat waves in the western United States and Great Lakes. Nature Climate Change, 8(5):414–420, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Global flood risk under climate change

    Yukiko Hirabayashi, Roobavannan Mahendran, Sujan Koirala, Lisako Konoshima, Dai Yamazaki, Satoshi Watanabe, Hyungjun Kim, and Shinjiro Kanae. Global flood risk under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 3(9):816–821, 2013

    2013

Show all 119 references
  1. [9]

    Spatial and temporal expansion of global wildland fire activity in response to climate change

    Martín Senande-Rivera, Damián Insua-Costa, and Gonzalo Miguez-Macho. Spatial and temporal expansion of global wildland fire activity in response to climate change. Nature Communications, 13(1):1208, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California

    Patrick T Brown, Holt Hanley, Ankur Mahesh, Colorado Reed, Scott J Strenfel, Steven J Davis, Adam K Kochanski, and Craig B Clements. Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California. Nature, 621(7980):760–766, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    A mission-driven approach for converting research into climate action

    Daniel Adshead, Haluk Akay, Christophe Duwig, Elina Eriksson, Mattias Höjer, Karin Larsdotter, Åsa Svenfelt, Ricardo Vinuesa, and Francesco Fuso Nerini. A mission-driven approach for converting research into climate action. npj Climate Action, 2(1):13, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Machine-learning-based evidence and attribution mapping of 100,000 climate impact studies

    Max Callaghan, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Shruti Nath, Quentin Lejeune, Thomas R Knutson, Markus Reich- stein, Gerrit Hansen, Emily Theokritoff, Marina Andrijevic, Robert J Brecha, et al. Machine-learning-based evidence and attribution mapping of 100,000 climate impact studie...

    2021

  5. [13]

    ClimateBERT: A pretrained language model for climate-related text

    Nicolas Webersinke, Mathias Kraus, Julia Bingler, and Markus Leippold. ClimateBERT: A pretrained language model for climate-related text. Available at SSRN 4229146, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Beyond modeling: NLP pipeline for efficient environmental policy analysis

    Jordi Planas, Daniel Firebanks-Quevedo, Galina Naydenova, Ramansh Sharma, Cristina Taylor, Kathleen Buckingham, and Rong Fang. Beyond modeling: NLP pipeline for efficient environmental policy analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07105, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Tackling climate change with machine learning

    David Rolnick, Priya L Donti, Lynn H Kaack, Kelly Kochanski, Alexandre Lacoste, Kris Sankaran, An- drew Slavin Ross, Nikola Milojevic-Dupont, Natasha Jaques, Anna Waldman-Brown, et al. Tackling climate change with machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 55(2):1–96, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Towards answering climate questionnaires from unstructured climate reports

    Daniel Spokoyny, Tanmay Laud, Tom Corringham, and Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick. Towards answering climate questionnaires from unstructured climate reports. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04253, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    ClimateBERT-NetZero: Detecting and assessing net zero and reduction targets

    Tobias Schimanski, Julia Bingler, Mathias Kraus, Camilla Hyslop, and Markus Leippold. ClimateBERT-NetZero: Detecting and assessing net zero and reduction targets. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 15745–15756, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Bridging the gap in ESG measurement: Using NLP to quantify environmental, social, and governance communication

    Tobias Schimanski, Andrin Reding, Nico Reding, Julia Bingler, Mathias Kraus, and Markus Leippold. Bridging the gap in ESG measurement: Using NLP to quantify environmental, social, and governance communication. Finance Research Letters, 61:104979, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Risks and benefits of large language models for the environment

    Matthias C Rillig, Marlene Ågerstrand, Mohan Bi, Kenneth A Gould, and Uli Sauerland. Risks and benefits of large language models for the environment. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(9):3464–3466, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Assessing large language models on climate information

    Jannis Bulian, Mike S Schäfer, Afra Amini, Heidi Lam, Massimiliano Ciaramita, Ben Gaiarin, Michelle Chen Huebscher, Christian Buck, Niels Mede, Markus Leippold, et al. Assessing large language models on climate information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02932, 2023

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Foundation models for weather and climate data understanding: A comprehensive survey

    Shengchao Chen, Guodong Long, Jing Jiang, Dikai Liu, and Chengqi Zhang. Foundation models for weather and climate data understanding: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03014, 2023. 25 A RAG-Based Multi-Agent LLM System for Natural Hazard Resilience and Adaptation

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Leveraging large language models to monitor climate technology innovation

    Malte Toetzke, Benedict Probst, and Stefan Feuerriegel. Leveraging large language models to monitor climate technology innovation. Environmental Research Letters, 18(9):091004, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Answering clean tech questions with large language models

    Lauren Stagnol, Amina Cherief, Zakaria Farah, Théo Le Guenedal, Sofia Sakout, and Takaya Sekine. Answering clean tech questions with large language models. Available at SSRN 4663447, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Generative AI tools can enhance climate literacy but must be checked for biases and inaccuracies

    Carmen Atkins, Gina Girgente, Manoochehr Shirzaei, and Junghwan Kim. Generative AI tools can enhance climate literacy but must be checked for biases and inaccuracies. Communications Earth & Environment , 5(1):226, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Integrating artificial intelligence with expert knowledge in global environmental assessments: opportunities, challenges and the way ahead

    Veruska Muccione, Saeid Ashraf Vaghefi, Julia Bingler, Simon K Allen, Mathias Kraus, Glen Gostlow, Tobias Wekhof, Chiara Colesanti-Senni, Dominik Stammbach, Jingwei Ni, et al. Integrating artificial intelligence with expert knowledge in global environmental assessments: opport...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Evaluating ChatNetZero, an LLM- Chatbot to demystify climate pledges

    Angel Hsu, Mason Laney, Ji Zhang, Diego Manya, and Linda Farczadi. Evaluating ChatNetZero, an LLM- Chatbot to demystify climate pledges. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Natural Language Processing Meets Climate Change (ClimateNLP 2024), pages 82–92, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Disasterresponsegpt: Large language models for accelerated plan of action development in disaster response scenarios

    Vinicius G Goecks and Nicholas R Waytowich. Disasterresponsegpt: Large language models for accelerated plan of action development in disaster response scenarios. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17271, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Large language models in fire engineering: An examination of technical questions against domain knowledge

    Haley Hostetter, MZ Naser, Xinyan Huang, and John Gales. Large language models in fire engineering: An examination of technical questions against domain knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04795, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Optimizing ai-driven disaster management through llms

    Wei Chen and Jiing Fang. Optimizing ai-driven disaster management through llms. DOI:10.20944/preprints202407.1446.v1, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    ChatClimate: Grounding conversational AI in climate science

    Saeid Ashraf Vaghefi, Dominik Stammbach, Veruska Muccione, Julia Bingler, Jingwei Ni, Mathias Kraus, Simon Allen, Chiara Colesanti-Senni, Tobias Wekhof, Tobias Schimanski, et al. ChatClimate: Grounding conversational AI in climate science. Communications Earth & Environment, 4...

    2023

  23. [31]

    ClimateGPT: Towards AI synthesizing interdisciplinary research on climate change

    David Thulke, Yingbo Gao, Petrus Pelser, Rein Brune, Rricha Jalota, Floris Fok, Michael Ramos, Ian van Wyk, Abdallah Nasir, Hayden Goldstein, et al. ClimateGPT: Towards AI synthesizing interdisciplinary research on climate change. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09646, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    LLM-assisted modeling and simulations for public sector decision- making: Bridging climate data and policy insights

    Charles Cao, Jie Zhuang, and Qiang He. LLM-assisted modeling and simulations for public sector decision- making: Bridging climate data and policy insights. In AAAI-2024 Workshop on Public Sector LLMs: Algorithmic and Sociotechnical Design, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Towards democratized flood risk management: An advanced ai assistant enabled by gpt-4 for enhanced interpretability and public engagement

    Rafaela Martelo, Kimia Ahmadiyehyazdi, and Ruo-Qian Wang. Towards democratized flood risk management: An advanced ai assistant enabled by gpt-4 for enhanced interpretability and public engagement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03188, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Perplexity AI: An answer engine for knowledge discovery, 2024

    Perplexity AI. Perplexity AI: An answer engine for knowledge discovery, 2024. Available at https://perplexity.ai

    2024

  27. [35]

    Benchmarks for Pirá 2.0, a reading comprehension dataset about the ocean, the Brazilian coast, and climate change

    Paulo Pirozelli, Marcos M José, Igor Silveira, Flávio Nakasato, Sarajane M Peres, Anarosa AF Brandão, Anna HR Costa, and Fabio G Cozman. Benchmarks for Pirá 2.0, a reading comprehension dataset about the ocean, the Brazilian coast, and climate change. Data Intelligence, 6(1):2...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making

    Paul Hager, Friederike Jungmann, Robbie Holland, Kunal Bhagat, Inga Hubrecht, Manuel Knauer, Jakob Vielhauer, Marcus Makowski, Rickmer Braren, Georgios Kaissis, et al. Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making. Nature Med...

    2024

  29. [37]

    MEDIQ: Question-asking LLMs for adaptive and reliable medical reasoning

    Shuyue Stella Li, Vidhisha Balachandran, Shangbin Feng, Jonathan Ilgen, Emma Pierson, Pang Wei Koh, and Yulia Tsvetkov. MEDIQ: Question-asking LLMs for adaptive and reliable medical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00922, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Enhancing large language models with climate resources

    Mathias Kraus, Julia Anna Bingler, Markus Leippold, Tobias Schimanski, Chiara Colesanti Senni, Dominik Stammbach, Saeid Ashraf Vaghefi, and Nicolas Webersinke. Enhancing large language models with climate resources. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.00116, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Artificial intelligence can help loss and damage only if it is inclusive and accessible

    Francesca Larosa and Adam Wickberg. Artificial intelligence can help loss and damage only if it is inclusive and accessible. npj Climate Action, 3(1):59, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    G-eval: NLG evaluation using GPT-4 with better human alignment

    Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. G-eval: NLG evaluation using GPT-4 with better human alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16634, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-bench and Chatbot arena

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-bench and Chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46595–46623, 2023. 26 A RAG-Ba...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Projecting wildfire area burned in the south-eastern united states, 2011–60

    Jeffrey P Prestemon, Uma Shankar, Aijun Xiu, Keith Talgo, Dongmei Yang, Ernest Dixon, Donald McKenzie, and Karen L Abt. Projecting wildfire area burned in the south-eastern united states, 2011–60. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 25(7):715–729, 2016

    2011

  35. [43]

    Climate change and the eco-hydrology of fire: Will area burned increase in a warming western USA? Ecological applications, 27(1):26–36, 2017

    Donald McKenzie and Jeremy S Littell. Climate change and the eco-hydrology of fire: Will area burned increase in a warming western USA? Ecological applications, 27(1):26–36, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Projected increase in lightning strikes in the United States due to global warming

    David M Romps, Jacob T Seeley, David V ollaro, and John Molinari. Projected increase in lightning strikes in the United States due to global warming. Science, 346(6211):851–854, 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    The sensitivity of global wildfires to simulated past, present, and future lightning frequency

    Andreas Krause, Silvia Kloster, Stiig Wilkenskjeld, and Heiko Paeth. The sensitivity of global wildfires to simulated past, present, and future lightning frequency. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences , 119(3):312–322, 2014

    2014

  38. [46]

    Future increases in lightning ignition efficiency and wildfire occurrence expected from drier fuels in boreal forest ecosystems of western North America

    Thomas D Hessilt, John T Abatzoglou, Yang Chen, James T Randerson, Rebecca C Scholten, Guido Van Der Werf, and Sander Veraverbeke. Future increases in lightning ignition efficiency and wildfire occurrence expected from drier fuels in boreal forest ecosystems of western North A...

    2022

  39. [47]

    Global increase in wildfire potential from compound fire weather and drought

    Doug Richardson, Amanda S Black, Damien Irving, Richard J Matear, Didier P Monselesan, James S Risbey, Dougal T Squire, and Carly R Tozer. Global increase in wildfire potential from compound fire weather and drought. NPJ Climate and Atmospheric Science, 5(1):23, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Projected US drought extremes through the twenty-first century with vapor pressure deficit

    Brandi L Gamelin, Jeremy Feinstein, Jiali Wang, Julie Bessac, Eugene Yan, and Veerabhadra R Kotamarthi. Projected US drought extremes through the twenty-first century with vapor pressure deficit. Scientific Reports, 12(1):8615, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Wildfires and global change

    Juli G Pausas and Jon E Keeley. Wildfires and global change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 19(7):387–395, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    GPT-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    OpenAI Assistant API

    OpenAI. OpenAI Assistant API. https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/assistant , 2023. Accessed: 2024-06-21

    2023

  44. [52]

    https://www.streamlit.io/

    Streamlit. https://www.streamlit.io/. Accessed: 2024-01-21

    2024

  45. [53]

    Fire weather index (fwi) system, 2021

    National Wildfire Coordinating Group. Fire weather index (fwi) system, 2021. Accessed: 2024-09-30

    2021

  46. [54]

    Climate risk & resilience portal (ClimRR), 2022

    Argonne National Laboratory. Climate risk & resilience portal (ClimRR), 2022. Accessed: 2024-01-21

    2022

  47. [55]

    Wildland fire incident locations

    National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). Wildland fire incident locations. NIFC Open Data. Accessed 2024-01-21

    2024

  48. [56]

    Integrated reporting of wildfire information (irwin)

    Wildfire.gov. Integrated reporting of wildfire information (irwin). Wildfire.gov. Accessed 2024-01-21

    2024

  49. [57]

    Margolis and C.H

    E.Q. Margolis and C.H. Guiterman. NOAA/WDS Paleoclimatology - North American Tree-ring Fire Scar Synthesis (NAFSS). NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, 05 2021. Accessed 2024-01-21

    2021

  50. [58]

    Census Bureau

    U.S. Census Bureau. American community survey 5-year data (2018-2022), 2023. Accessed: 2024-01-13

    2018

  51. [59]

    Understanding the impact of climate change on critical infrastructure through NLP analysis of scientific literature

    Tanwi Mallick, Joshua David Bergerson, Duane R Verner, John K Hutchison, Leslie-Anne Levy, and Prasanna Balaprakash. Understanding the impact of climate change on critical infrastructure through NLP analysis of scientific literature. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, p...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Analyzing regional impacts of climate change using natural language processing techniques.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06817, 2024

    Tanwi Mallick, John Murphy, Joshua David Bergerson, Duane R Verner, John K Hutchison, and Leslie-Anne Levy. Analyzing regional impacts of climate change using natural language processing techniques.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06817, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318, 2002

    2002

  54. [62]

    Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries

    CY LIN. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Proc. Workshop on Text Summariation Branches Out, Post-Conference Workshop of ACL 2004, 2004

    2004

  55. [63]

    Meta-evaluation of conversational search evaluation metrics

    Zeyang Liu, Ke Zhou, and Max L Wilson. Meta-evaluation of conversational search evaluation metrics. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 39(4):1–42, 2021. 27 A RAG-Based Multi-Agent LLM System for Natural Hazard Resilience and Adaptation

    2021

  56. [64]

    Probing the robustness of trained metrics for conversational dialogue systems

    Jan Milan Deriu, Don Tuggener, Pius von Däniken, and Mark Cieliebak. Probing the robustness of trained metrics for conversational dialogue systems. In 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2022), Dublin, Ireland, 22-27 May 2022 , volume 2, p...

    2022

  57. [65]

    Understanding user intent modeling for conversational recommender systems: a systematic literature review

    Siamak Farshidi, Kiyan Rezaee, Sara Mazaheri, Amir Hossein Rahimi, Ali Dadashzadeh, Morteza Ziabakhsh, Sadegh Eskandari, and Slinger Jansen. Understanding user intent modeling for conversational recommender systems: a systematic literature review. User Modeling and User-Adapte...

    2024

  58. [66]

    Long-term monitoring programs and data-collection protocols for fuel treatment sites: a literature review

    Steve Hvenegaard. Long-term monitoring programs and data-collection protocols for fuel treatment sites: a literature review. 2014

    2014

  59. [67]

    Wildfire policy and fire use on public lands in the United States

    Lisa Dale. Wildfire policy and fire use on public lands in the United States. Society and Natural Resources, 19(3):275–284, 2006

    2006

  60. [68]

    Forest vegetation change and its impacts on soil water following 47 years of managed wildfire

    Jens T Stevens, Gabrielle FS Boisramé, Ekaterina Rakhmatulina, Sally E Thompson, Brandon M Collins, and Scott L Stephens. Forest vegetation change and its impacts on soil water following 47 years of managed wildfire. Ecosystems, 23(8):1547–1565, 2020

    2020

  61. [69]

    Wildfire exposure to the wildland urban interface in the western US

    Alan A Ager, Palaiologos Palaiologou, Cody R Evers, Michelle A Day, Chris Ringo, and Karen Short. Wildfire exposure to the wildland urban interface in the western US. Applied Geography, 111:102059, 2019

    2019

  62. [70]

    Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes

    Tania Schoennagel, Jennifer K Balch, Hannah Brenkert-Smith, Philip E Dennison, Brian J Harvey, Meg A Krawchuk, Nathan Mietkiewicz, Penelope Morgan, Max A Moritz, Ray Rasker, et al. Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes. Proceedings of the ...

    2017

  63. [71]

    Effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments: assessing metrics of forest resiliency and wildfire severity after the wallow fire, az

    Amy EM Waltz, Michael T Stoddard, Elizabeth L Kalies, Judith D Springer, David W Huffman, and An- drew Sánchez Meador. Effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments: assessing metrics of forest resiliency and wildfire severity after the wallow fire, az. Forest Ecology and Managem...

    2014

  64. [72]

    Can wildland fire management alter 21st-century subalpine fire and forests in grand teton national park, wyoming, usa? Ecological Applications, 30(2):e02030, 2020

    Winslow D Hansen, Diane Abendroth, Werner Rammer, Rupert Seidl, and Monica G Turner. Can wildland fire management alter 21st-century subalpine fire and forests in grand teton national park, wyoming, usa? Ecological Applications, 30(2):e02030, 2020

    2020

  65. [73]

    Dynamics of a managed oak woodland in northeastern Illinois

    Amanda B Stan, Lesley S Rigg, and Linda S Jones. Dynamics of a managed oak woodland in northeastern Illinois. Natural Areas Journal, 26(2):187–197, 2006

    2006

  66. [74]

    Fire and sustainability: considerations for California’s altered future climate

    Max A Moritz and Scott L Stephens. Fire and sustainability: considerations for California’s altered future climate. Climatic Change, 87(Suppl 1):265–271, 2008

    2008

  67. [75]

    Challenges and contributing factors in the utilization of large language models (LLMs)

    Xiaoliang Chen, Liangbin Li, Le Chang, Yunhe Huang, Yuxuan Zhao, Yuxiao Zhang, and Dinuo Li. Challenges and contributing factors in the utilization of large language models (LLMs). arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13343, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Learning to ask: When LLMs meet unclear instruction

    Wenxuan Wang, Juluan Shi, Chaozheng Wang, Cheryl Lee, Youliang Yuan, Jen-tse Huang, and Michael R Lyu. Learning to ask: When LLMs meet unclear instruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00557, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Using recommendation systems in disaster management: A systematic literature review

    Sarra Chaiir, Malika Charrad, and Narjès Bellamine Ben Saoud. Using recommendation systems in disaster management: A systematic literature review. Procedia Computer Science, 225:1738–1747, 2023

    2023

  70. [78]

    Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: broadening the usability of climate science

    Christine J Kirchhoff, Maria Carmen Lemos, and Suraje Dessai. Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: broadening the usability of climate science. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 38(1):393–414, 2013

    2013

  71. [79]

    Geographic information systems (GIS) for disaster management

    Brian Tomaszewski. Geographic information systems (GIS) for disaster management. Routledge, 2020

    2020

  72. [80]

    Decision support system development of wildland fire: a systematic mapping

    Felipe Vásquez, Ania Cravero, Manuel Castro, and Patricio Acevedo. Decision support system development of wildland fire: a systematic mapping. Forests, 12(7):943, 2021

    2021

  73. [81]

    Present and future of artificial intelligence in disaster management

    Sheikh Kamran Abid, Shiau Wei Chan, Noralfishah Sulaiman, Uzair Bhatti, and Umber Nazir. Present and future of artificial intelligence in disaster management. In 2023 International Conference on Engineering Management of Communication and Technology (EMCTECH), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  74. [82]

    Understanding the landscape of usability evaluation in geographic information systems: A systematic literature review

    Dedy Kurniawan, Dwi Rosa Indah, Purwita Sari, and Rahmat Alif. Understanding the landscape of usability evaluation in geographic information systems: A systematic literature review. Journal of Applied Science, Engineering, Technology, and Education, 5(1):35–45, 2023

    2023

  75. [83]

    Climate changes through data science: understanding and mitigating environmental crisis

    Ahmed Hussein Ali and Rahul Thakkar. Climate changes through data science: understanding and mitigating environmental crisis. Mesopotamian Journal of Big Data, 2023:125–137, 2023

    2023

  76. [84]

    Forest fire danger/risk forecasting: a remote sensing approach

    M Razu Ahmed. Forest fire danger/risk forecasting: a remote sensing approach. Forest, page 03, 2020. 28 A RAG-Based Multi-Agent LLM System for Natural Hazard Resilience and Adaptation

    2020

  77. [85]

    WeatherQA: Can multimodal language models reason about severe weather? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11217, 2024

    Chengqian Ma, Zhanxiang Hua, Alexandra Anderson-Frey, Vikram Iyer, Xin Liu, and Lianhui Qin. WeatherQA: Can multimodal language models reason about severe weather? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11217, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    A comprehensive evaluation of multimodal large language models in hydrological applications

    Likith Kadiyala, Omer Mermer, Dinesh Jackson Samuel, Yusuf Sermet, and Ibrahim Demir. A comprehensive evaluation of multimodal large language models in hydrological applications. 2024

    2024

  79. [87]

    Multi-modal and multi-agent systems meet rationality: A survey

    Bowen Jiang, Yangxinyu Xie, Xiaomeng Wang, Weijie J Su, Camillo J Taylor, and Tanwi Mallick. Multi-modal and multi-agent systems meet rationality: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00252, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Prediction- powered inference

    Anastasios N Angelopoulos, Stephen Bates, Clara Fannjiang, Michael I Jordan, and Tijana Zrnic. Prediction- powered inference. Science, 382(6671):669–674, 2023

    2023

  81. [89]

    Prediction-powered ranking of large language models

    Ivi Chatzi, Eleni Straitouri, Suhas Thejaswi, and Manuel Rodriguez. Prediction-powered ranking of large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:113096–113133, 2024

    2024

  82. [90]

    QLoRA: Efficient finetuning of quantized LLMs

    Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. QLoRA: Efficient finetuning of quantized LLMs. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  83. [91]

    Grounding large language models in interactive environments with online reinforcement learning

    Thomas Carta, Clément Romac, Thomas Wolf, Sylvain Lamprier, Olivier Sigaud, and Pierre-Yves Oudeyer. Grounding large language models in interactive environments with online reinforcement learning. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3676–3713. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  84. [92]

    The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning

    Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08691, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Connecting large language models with evolutionary algorithms yields powerful prompt optimizers

    Qingyan Guo, Rui Wang, Junliang Guo, Bei Li, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Guoqing Liu, Jiang Bian, and Yujiu Yang. Connecting large language models with evolutionary algorithms yields powerful prompt optimizers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08532, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), ...

    2019

  87. [95]

    Hybrid hierarchical retrieval for open-domain question answering

    Manoj Ghuhan Arivazhagan, Lan Liu, Peng Qi, Xinchi Chen, William Yang Wang, and Zhiheng Huang. Hybrid hierarchical retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 10680–10689, 2023

    2023

  88. [96]

    Enhancing semantic search using ontologies: A hybrid information retrieval approach for industrial text

    Syed Meesam Raza Naqvi, Mohammad Ghufran, Christophe Varnier, Jean-Marc Nicod, and Noureddine Zerhouni. Enhancing semantic search using ontologies: A hybrid information retrieval approach for industrial text. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, page 100835, 2025

    2025

  89. [97]

    The knowwheregraph: A large-scale geo-knowledge graph for interdisciplinary knowledge discovery and geo-enrichment

    Rui Zhu, Cogan Shimizu, Shirly Stephen, Colby K Fisher, Thomas Thelen, Kitty Currier, Krzysztof Janowicz, Pascal Hitzler, Mark Schildhauer, Wenwen Li, et al. The knowwheregraph: A large-scale geo-knowledge graph for interdisciplinary knowledge discovery and geo-enrichment. arX...

    2025 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Effect of adaptive communication support on human-ai collaboration

    Shipeng Liu, FNU Shrutika, Boshen Zhang, Zhehui Huang, and Feifei Qian. Effect of adaptive communication support on human-ai collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06808, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context

    Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 31210–31227. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  92. [100]

    Survey of hallucination in natural language generation.ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12):1–38, 2023

    Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation.ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12):1–38, 2023

    2023

  93. [101]

    A long way to go: Investigating length correlations in R:HF

    Prasann Singhal, Tanya Goyal, Jiacheng Xu, and Greg Durrett. A long way to go: Investigating length correlations in R:HF. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03716, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Agentic retrieval-augmented generation: A survey on agentic rag

    Aditi Singh, Abul Ehtesham, Saket Kumar, and Tala Talaei Khoei. Agentic retrieval-augmented generation: A survey on agentic rag. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09136, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge- intensive nlp tasks

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge- intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing System...

    2020

  96. [104]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  97. [105]

    C. E. Van Wagner. Development and structure of the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index System. Forestry Technical Report 35, Canadian Forestry Service, Headquarters, Ottawa, 1987. 29 A RAG-Based Multi-Agent LLM System for Natural Hazard Resilience and Adaptation

    1987

  98. [106]

    Billion-scale similarity search with gpus

    Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535–547, 2019

    2019

  99. [107]

    sentence embeddings using siamese BERT-networks

    Reimers Nils. sentence embeddings using siamese BERT-networks. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the International Joint Conference on Natural Language, pages 3982–3992, 2020. Supplementary Materials Overview of the Wildfi...

    2020

  100. [109]

    Increased potential for very large fires: The risk of very large fires (top 10% of fires) could increase up to sixfold in parts of the West, including New Mexico, by mid-century (2041-2070) compared to the recent past (1971-2000)[3]

    1971

  101. [110]

    These conditions, combined with historic fire suppression practices, may lead to more frequent large fire events

    Climate change impacts: Warming temperatures, more frequent heat waves, and diminished soil moisture during the dry season are expected to contribute to increased fire danger[3]. These conditions, combined with historic fire suppression practices, may lead to more frequent lar...

  102. [111]

    31 A RAG-Based Multi-Agent LLM System for Natural Hazard Resilience and Adaptation Case Study Prompt Climate Impact on U.S

    Extended fire seasons: Climate change is projected to both intensify fire-friendly weather conditions and lengthen the season during which very large fires tend to spread[3]. 31 A RAG-Based Multi-Agent LLM System for Natural Hazard Resilience and Adaptation Case Study Prompt C...

  103. [112]

    Drought and fuel conditions: The combination of warming temperatures and below-normal precipitation in the Southwest may lead to drier fuels and increased fire potential[1]

  104. [113]

    The 2022 Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire demonstrated the severe consequences of large-scale fires on the city’s water resources

    Watershed vulnerability: Las Vegas, NM relies on a single surface water source (the Gallinas River watershed), making it particularly vulnerable to wildfire impacts on its water supply[2]. The 2022 Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire demonstrated the severe consequences of large-sc...

    2022

  105. [114]

    https://www.nifc.gov/nicc-files/predictive/outlooks/monthly_seasonal_outlook.pdf

  106. [115]

    https://www.circleofblue.org/2023/world/new-mexicos-largest-fire-wrecked-this-cit ys-water-source/

    2023

  107. [116]

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/risk-very-large-fires-could -increase-sixfold-mid-century-us

  108. [117]

    https://www.nifc.gov/nicc-files/predictive/outlooks/NA_Outlook.pdf

  109. [118]

    https://srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs243.pdf

  110. [119]

    R382C098

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9076366/ Perplexity (when provided with the data file for FWI): Chose crossmodels "R382C098", "R438C055", "R395C128", "R411C070", "R418C086" in the dataset. However, the correct crossmodels are around "R110C303." WildfireGPT: The Fire W...

    1995

  111. [2054]

    suggests that there will be an increase in fire danger in Las Vegas, NM. Climate change is expected to drive future increases in North American fire weather, particularly in the southwest, with a significant increase in the Fire Weather Index (FWI) before 2050 under the RCP8.5...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.