Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Towards Automated Situation Awareness: A RAG-Based Framework for Peacebuilding Reports

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a retrieval-augmented generation system can turn public conflict, news, and economic data into first-draft peacebuilding reports, cutting analyst time by roughly half.

desk verdict First RAG-for-peacebuilding paper with real UNDP experts, but the evaluation never isolates the RAG contribution and the 50% time-saving is asserted, not measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10586 v1 pith:ZABUAMCU submitted 2025-05-14 cs.CY cs.CL

Poli A. Nemkova , Suleyman O. Polat , Rafid I. Jahan , Sagnik Ray Choudhury , Sun-joo Lee , Shouryadipta Sarkar , Mark V. Albert This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.CL
keywords retrieval-augmentedgenerationsituationawarenesspeacebuildingreportsconflictmonitoringexpertevaluationLLM-as-a-judgefactualconsistencyopendata
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

The paper tries to establish that automated situation-awareness reports for peacebuilding are achievable with a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system that assembles, on demand, a knowledge base from public news, conflict-event, humanitarian, and economic data and then produces a structured, source-cited first draft. A sympathetic reader would take the central message to be that this first draft is good enough to cut a human analyst's work from about two weeks to roughly one week, while leaving final judgment to experts. The authors support this with a three-level evaluation: automated NLP metrics for factuality, consistency, bias, and coherence; binary relevance and completeness questions plus pairwise preferences answered by two senior experts from the partner humanitarian agency; and an LLM-as-a-judge pass using the same questionnaire. Their reported results show moderate human inter-annotator agreement, a 76% human preference for GPT-generated reports over LLaMA-generated ones in pairwise choices, and LLM judges scoring more generously than humans, which the paper takes as evidence that expert review remains mandatory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the dynamic retrieval pipeline: a user-specified country and reporting window trigger queries to four public data APIs, the fetched documents are cleaned, numeric values are wrapped in textual templates, and a lightweight sentence encoder embeds everything into a query-specific vector store. A similarity search over that store selects the top ten evidence passages, which are pasted into a prompt that instructs the LLM to produce a structured report with source citations. The second half of the machinery is the three-level evaluation stack: automated metrics (VERISCORE for factuality, a modified ragve variant that verifies grounding in the retrieved knowledge base, SummaC for consistency, a political-bias classifier, and a BERT-based coherence score), expert evaluation through binary relevance and completeness questions plus pairwise preferences, and LLM-as-a-judge scoring with the same questionnaire. The ragve modification is what ties the evaluation to the RAG claim, because it checks that claims are grounded in the retrieved evidence rather than in model memory.

What would settle it

Take twelve country-periods balanced between high- and low-coverage regions, have analysts list every fact a complete situation report should contain, and count how many appear in the RAG report; if low-coverage regions systematically miss a large share of reference facts, the knowledge-base claim is shown to be coverage-limited. A second check: compute the correlation between the Level-1 automated metrics and the Level-2 expert binary scores across all 60 reports; near-zero correlation would falsify the claim that the three-level framework is a coherent measure of report quality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a dynamic RAG framework, the first applied to peacebuilding, can generate reports that are coherent, insightful, and actionable enough to serve as a foundation for expert refinement. The system takes a country and a date range, queries four public data sources, converts numeric indicators into text, embeds the collected documents, retrieves the top ten most similar passages for the query 'Conflict and social unrest issues in {country}', and prompts an LLM to write a report with fixed sections and explicit source citations. The paper reports factuality scores averaging 0.73-0.91 on VERISCORE and 0.60-0.69 on a knowledge-base-grounded variant, expert binary scores around 62-64% of the maximum, human preference for GPT-generated reports in 76% of pairwise comparisons, and a claimed time saving of approximately 50% because the generated report becomes the base for review and refinement.

Load-bearing premise

The system's usefulness rests on the assumption that the top ten passages retrieved from the four public data sources contain the balanced facts a good peacebuilding report needs; where news coverage is thin, the report inherits those gaps and the claimed time saving buys a weaker draft.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • First-draft situation reports can be generated in near real time from open data, cutting the manual analysis cycle from roughly two weeks to one and letting the same analyst team cover more countries or more frequent updates.
  • Report quality is bounded by the retrieved evidence: in low-coverage regions such as the Horn of Africa, performance degrades, so operational deployments must supplement the four sources or state coverage limits explicitly.
  • LLM-as-a-judge cannot replace human evaluation; the paper's data show self-preference (GPT scoring its own reports at 1.0) and cross-model disagreement, so automated judges need calibration against human anchors before use.
  • The three-level framework gives other teams a reusable template for validating RAG output in high-stakes settings, with the modified factuality checker released as an open tool.
  • The system is positioned as an augmentation rather than a replacement, since the authors state that human review remains mandatory before reports reach stakeholders.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural experiment the paper does not run is varying the number of retrieved passages (for example, five versus twenty) and measuring expert preference, which would test whether the top-ten budget is optimal or whether more evidence improves completeness at the cost of noise.
  • The paper never correlates its Level-1 automated scores with the Level-2 human binary judgments; computing that correlation across the 60 reports would show whether the three-level framework measures one coherent notion of quality or three different things.
  • The regional variation in performance implies a testable prediction: for a fixed country, RAG report quality should track the volume and recency of international media coverage, which could be quantified from the news-event API and regressed against expert scores.
  • The divergence among LLM judges suggests that which model wrote the report and which model judges it jointly determine evaluation outcomes, so any future deployment should report judge identity alongside quality scores.
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

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a dynamic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system that automatically drafts situation awareness reports for peacebuilding contexts. It retrieves data from GDELT, ACLED, ReliefWeb, and the World Bank based on a country and date range, embeds the data with MiniLM, retrieves the top-10 evidence items with FAISS, and prompts GPT-4o or LLaMA-3 with either an instruction or a personification prompt to generate a structured report. The authors propose a three-level evaluation: automated NLP metrics (VERISCORE and a modified 'ragve' version, SummaC, politicalBiasBERT, a BERT-based coherence score), expert review by two senior UNDP staff using binary and pairwise questions, and LLM-as-a-judge evaluation. On 15 country/date inputs they generate 60 reports. They report that human experts scored GPT reports 62% and LLaMA reports 64% on binary relevance/completeness, preferred GPT in 76% of pairwise comparisons, and claim the system reduces analyst time by about 50% (from two weeks to one week). They release code and evaluation tools.

Significance. If the reported results were properly supported, the contribution would be useful: a dynamic, publicly sourced RAG pipeline with UNDP expert involvement and open code. The paper's strengths include the use of real expert evaluators from a target organization, the construction of query-specific knowledge bases on demand, and the release of the ragve tool and code. However, the current evaluation does not isolate the RAG contribution, does not establish agreement between automated and human metrics, and does not provide uncertainty quantification. These gaps mean the central empirical claims (report quality and the 50% time saving) are not yet established. The three-level framework is a reasonable idea, but as presented it is not a validated evaluation methodology.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section 4, Level 2; Section 5.4] The reported quality scores cannot be attributed to the RAG framework because no baseline is included. There is no condition in which the same prompts are run without retrieval, no human-drafted report baseline, and no ablation varying the number of retrieved evidence items. Without such a control, the 62–64% binary scores and the 'foundation for refinement' claim in Section 5.4 might reflect the underlying LLM and prompt rather than retrieval augmentation.
  2. [Sections 5.2 and 5.4] The claim that the system 'reduces this time by approximately 50%' is an estimate, not a measured outcome. The text states a human analyst currently takes up to two weeks and the system drops this to one week, but no time-motion study, survey, or measurement of drafting/refinement time is reported. The claim should be removed or supported with data, or explicitly labeled as a projected benefit.
  3. [Table 1 and Section 5.1] The automated Level-1 metrics are never calibrated against the human expert judgments. Table 1 reports average VERISCORE, RAG VERISCORE, SummaC, bias, and coherence scores without variance, confidence intervals, or per-report values, and Section 5.1 shows GPT-as-a-judge assigning its own reports a perfect 1.0 while human scores are around 0.62–0.64. No correlation, regression, or agreement statistic is provided between any Level-1 metric and Level-2 human scores, so the claim that the three-level framework 'enhances reliability' is unsupported.
  4. [Table 3, Preference-Based Evaluation] Inter-rater reliability for the preference questions is too low to support the pairwise preference conclusions. For LLaMA-generated reports, Cohen's Kappa for Q8 (completeness) and Q9 (accuracy) is 0.12–0.17, effectively near chance agreement, and the overall preference Cohen's Kappa for LLaMA prompt 2 is 0.31. With only two evaluators and 15 reports per condition, the 76% preference for GPT should be reported with the low agreement explicitly acknowledged, and disagreements should be adjudicated or the preference items discarded.
  5. [Section 4, Level 1] The system description states that 'Only reports that met acceptable threshold values in Level 1 evaluation were forwarded to the next stage,' but no threshold values are defined and Table 3 reports evaluation results for all four model-prompt conditions. It is therefore unclear whether any reports were filtered and what the thresholds were. The thresholds and the number of reports passing or failing at each threshold should be stated, or the sentence should be corrected to say that no filtering was applied.
  6. [Section 4, Level 3 and Section 5.1] The LLM-as-a-judge component uses the same model families that generated the reports (GPT-4o and LLaMA 3), and the paper reports that GPT assigns its own reports a perfect 1.0. The authors acknowledge 'possible overconfidence or evaluation bias,' but the framework still includes these scores as evidence of robustness. The self-evaluation scores should be either removed from the headline results, corrected with a debiased judge, or replaced with a model that was not used for generation and whose scores are calibrated to human judgments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Level 1, footnote 11] The GitHub URL for ragve is given as 'withheld-for-anonymity'; this placeholder should be replaced with the actual repository URL or removed if the paper is under anonymized review.
  2. [Section 2] The literature review contains an unresolved citation placeholder '[?]' immediately after [Joshi et al., 2024].
  3. [Section 4, Test Sample Selection] The text says 'Horns of Africa'; the correct region name is 'Horn of Africa'.
  4. [Table 3 and Section 5] The row 'Avg. Max Score (Binary Questions)' reports 0.62, 0.64, 0.60, 0.63 for the four conditions, but Section 5 states GPT reports achieved 62% and LLaMA reports scored 64%; the relationship between the row and the quoted percentages is unclear, and averaging the LLaMA columns gives 0.615, not 0.64.
  5. [Table 1, Objectivity/Bias] The 'Politically Center Confidence' is 0.99 for all four conditions, a ceiling effect that is never discussed; the bias metric therefore appears non-diagnostic and should either be analyzed per report or removed from the evaluation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the system's claims are empirical, its central evaluation rests on external human expert judgments, and the self-referential LLM-judge results are explicitly flagged as biased rather than used as load-bearing evidence.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal derivation whose conclusion is equivalent to its inputs. The load-bearing claims—report quality, relevance, completeness, and time savings—are supported by human expert evaluation (Level 2) and by automated metrics (Level 1) that are calibrated against retrieved evidence rather than defined as the target conclusion. The one self-referential element is the LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation: GPT-4o rated its own reports 1.0, and the paper explicitly interprets this as 'possible overconfidence or evaluation bias in LLMs' rather than as evidence of quality. The modified VERISCORE (ragve) checks generated outputs against the same knowledge base used to ground generation; this is a faithfulness/consistency check, not a derivation that presupposes the report's correctness. The roughly 50% time-reduction claim in Section 5.4 is an estimate stated as an estimate, not a fitted prediction. The only self-citation (Nemkova et al., 2023) appears in a literature review of NLP conflict monitoring and is not load-bearing. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular; the evaluation has limitations (lack of a no-RAG baseline, low inter-annotator agreement on some items), but those are validity concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on a small number of design choices (top-10 retrieval, 15 country/date samples, unstated Level 1 thresholds), domain assumptions about data sufficiency and metric validity, and one new software tool. The heaviest unexamined assumption is that public-API data is a sufficient evidence base for accurate reports, given the authors' own evidence of regional coverage disparities. No parameter fitting or back-fitting is involved; the circularity burden comes instead from LLM self-judgment.

free parameters (3)
  • Top-k retrieved evidence = 10
    The number of retrieved evidence chunks (top 10) is chosen by the authors without an ablation or justification beyond 'the top 10 most relevant vector entries'. This choice directly bounds the evidence available for report generation.
  • Country/date input set = 15 sets over 4 regions
    The test sample is chosen by the authors: 13 named countries grouped into four macro regions and time windows of 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year. The selection is not randomized or stratified against a formal sampling frame.
  • Acceptance thresholds for Level 1 = Not specified
    The method description states that only reports meeting 'acceptable threshold values in Level 1' advance to human evaluation, but no threshold values are given in the paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Publicly available APIs provide sufficient, timely, and representative data for situation awareness in all tested countries.
    Section 3 and Section 5.3 both treat GDELT, ACLED, ReliefWeb, and World Bank data as an adequate evidence base, while acknowledging sparse coverage in regions like the Horn of Africa.
  • domain assumption Automated NLP metrics (VERISCORE, SummaC, politicalBiasBERT, BERT-based coherence) provide meaningful measurements of report quality as defined by the expert questionnaire.
    Section 4 maps metrics to accuracy, consistency, bias, and coherence without demonstrating correlation with human judgments; no agreement analysis between Level 1 and Level 2 scores is reported.
  • domain assumption LLM-as-a-judge evaluations are informative despite documented self-preference bias.
    Section 5.1 reports GPT-as-a-judge giving its own reports a perfect 1.0 score and discusses bias, but the paper still presents LLM judgments as a scalable evaluation layer and uses them in the comparison tables.
  • standard math Standard background results in RAG, vector search, and LLM generation hold as described.
    The paper relies on established libraries and methods, including MiniLM embeddings, FAISS similarity search, and the LLM APIs, without re-deriving them.
invented entities (1)
  • ragve (modified VERISCORE)
    purpose: A software tool that verifies whether RAG-generated outputs are grounded solely in the retrieved knowledge base, used as the accuracy metric in Level 1.
    ragve is a new packaging of an existing tool by the authors. It is not a physical entity and has no external falsifiable handle. Its validity as a measure of factual accuracy is not independently validated in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Automated Situation Awareness: A RAG-Based Framework for Peacebuilding Reports." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZABUAMCU

@misc{pith2026250510586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Automated Situation Awareness: A RAG-Based Framework for Peacebuilding Reports},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZABUAMCU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10586}
}
read the original abstract

Timely and accurate situation awareness is vital for decision-making in humanitarian response, conflict monitoring, and early warning and early action. However, the manual analysis of vast and heterogeneous data sources often results in delays, limiting the effectiveness of interventions. This paper introduces a dynamic Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system that autonomously generates situation awareness reports by integrating real-time data from diverse sources, including news articles, conflict event databases, and economic indicators. Our system constructs query-specific knowledge bases on demand, ensuring timely, relevant, and accurate insights. To ensure the quality of generated reports, we propose a three-level evaluation framework that combines semantic similarity metrics, factual consistency checks, and expert feedback. The first level employs automated NLP metrics to assess coherence and factual accuracy. The second level involves human expert evaluation to verify the relevance and completeness of the reports. The third level utilizes LLM-as-a-Judge, where large language models provide an additional layer of assessment to ensure robustness. The system is tested across multiple real-world scenarios, demonstrating its effectiveness in producing coherent, insightful, and actionable reports. By automating report generation, our approach reduces the burden on human analysts and accelerates decision-making processes. To promote reproducibility and further research, we openly share our code and evaluation tools with the community via GitHub.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10586 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall system design presented as a flowchart. Created with Miro. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Report evaluation three-level framework. Created with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    To- wards interpretable radiology report generation via con- cept bottlenecks using a multi-agentic rag

    [Alam et al., 2024] Hasan Md Tusfiqur Alam, Devansh Sri- vastav, Md Abdul Kadir, and Daniel Sonntag. To- wards interpretable radiology report generation via con- cept bottlenecks using a multi-agentic rag. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16086,

    arXiv 2024

  2. [4]

    [Assistant et al., 2024] Dr. M. Mahalakshmi Assistant, Shardul Bharadwaj, and Aklanta Niraz. A real-time medical report analysis and ai-powered diagnosis: A cloud-based solution for improved patient care. 2024 Sec- ond International Conference on Advances in Information Technology (ICAIT), 1:1–6,

    work page 2024

  3. [5]

    We can detect your bias: Predicting the political ideology of news articles

    [Baly et al., 2020] Ramy Baly, Giovanni Da San Martino, James Glass, and Preslav Nakov. We can detect your bias: Predicting the political ideology of news articles. In Pro- ceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), EMNLP ’20, pages 4982–4991,

    work page 2020

  4. [6]

    Bernardi, Marta Cimitile, and Ric- cardo Pecori

    [Bernardi et al., 2024] M. Bernardi, Marta Cimitile, and Ric- cardo Pecori. Automatic job safety report generation us- ing rag-based llms. 2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1–8,

    work page 2024

  5. [7]

    A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales

    [Cohen, 1960] Jacob Cohen. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measure- ment, 20(1):37–46,

    1960

  6. [10]

    A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval- augmented large language models.Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining,

    [Fan et al., 2024] Wenqi Fan, Yujuan Ding, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qing Li. A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval- augmented large language models.Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining,

    work page 2024

  7. [11]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey

    [Gao et al., 2023] 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,

    arXiv 2023

  8. [14]

    Robust multi model rag pipeline for documents containing text, table & images

    [Joshi et al., 2024] Pankaj Joshi, Aditya Gupta, Pankaj Ku- mar, and Manas Sisodia. Robust multi model rag pipeline for documents containing text, table & images. 2024 3rd International Conference on Applied Artificial Intelligence and Computing (ICAAIC), pages 993–999,

    work page 2024

Show all 24 references
  1. [15]

    Summac: Re- visiting nli-based models for inconsistency detection in summarization

    [Laban et al., 2022] Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel, Paul N Bennett, and Marti A Hearst. Summac: Re- visiting nli-based models for inconsistency detection in summarization. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:163–177,

    2022

  2. [17]

    Introducing a global dataset on conflict forecasts and news topics

    [Mueller et al., 2024] Hannes Mueller, Christopher Rauh, and Ben Seimon. Introducing a global dataset on conflict forecasts and news topics. Data & Policy, 6,

    2024

  3. [18]

    Ubani, S

    [Nemkova et al., 2023] Poli Nemkova, S. Ubani, S. Polat, Nayeon Kim, and Rodney D. Nielsen. Detecting human rights violations on social media during russia-ukraine war. ArXiv, abs/2306.05370,

    2023 arXiv

  4. [19]

    Linke, H ˚avard Hegre, and Joakim Karlsen

    [Raleigh et al., 2010] Clionadh Raleigh, A. Linke, H ˚avard Hegre, and Joakim Karlsen. Introducing acled: An armed conflict location and event dataset. Journal of Peace Re- search, 47:651 – 660,

    2010

  5. [21]

    Veriscore: Evaluating the factuality of verifi- able claims in long-form text generation

    [Song et al., 2024] Yixiao Song, Yekyung Kim, and Mo- hit Iyyer. Veriscore: Evaluating the factuality of verifi- able claims in long-form text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19276,

    2024 arXiv

  6. [22]

    [Suresh et al., 2024] Karthik Suresh, Neeltje Kackar, Luke Schleck, and C. Fanelli. Towards a rag-based summariza- tion for the electron ion collider. Journal of Instrumenta- tion,

    2024

  7. [23]

    Dodhia, J

    [Trivedi et al., 2020] Anusua Trivedi, Kate Keator, Michael Scholtens, Brandon Haigood, R. Dodhia, J. Ferres, Ria Sankar, and Avirishu Verma. How to handle armed conflict data in a real-world scenario? Philosophy & Technology, 34:111 – 123,

    2020

  8. [24]

    Optimizing data extraction: Harnessing rag and llms for german medical docu- ments

    [Wang et al., 2024] Yingding Wang, Simon Leutner, Michael Ingrisch, Christoph Klein, Christian Hinske, and Katharina Danhauser. Optimizing data extraction: Harnessing rag and llms for german medical docu- ments. Studies in health technology and informatics , 316:949–950, 2024

    2024

  9. [1960]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidi- rectional transformers for language understanding

    [Devlin, 2018] Jacob Devlin. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidi- rectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805,

    2018 arXiv

  10. [2010]

    Ranjit, G

    [Ranjit et al., 2023] M. Ranjit, G. Ganapathy, R. Manuel, and T. Ganu. Retrieval augmented chest x-ray report gen- eration using openai gpt models. ArXiv, abs/2305.03660,

    2023 arXiv

  11. [2018]

    The faiss library

    [Douze et al., 2024] Matthijs Douze, Alexandr Guzhva, Chengqi Deng, Jeff Johnson, Gergely Szilvasy, Pierre- Emmanuel Mazar ´e, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, and Herv´e J´egou. The faiss library

    2024

  12. [2020]

    A survey on rag with llms

    [Arslan et al., 2024] Muhammad Arslan, Hussam Ghanem, Saba Munawar, and Christophe Cruz. A survey on rag with llms. Procedia Computer Science , 246:3781–3790,

    2024

  13. [2022]

    From rags to riches: Using large language mod- els to write documents for clinical trials

    [Markey et al., 2024] Nigel Markey, Ilyass El-Mansouri, Gaetan Rensonnet, Casper van Langen, and Christoph Meier. From rags to riches: Using large language mod- els to write documents for clinical trials. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16406,

    2024 arXiv

  14. [2023]

    Deepseek-r1: In- centivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    [Guo et al., 2025] Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shi- rong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: In- centivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

    2025 arXiv

  15. [2024]

    Lattimer, Udo Kruschwitz, C

    [Alhelbawy et al., 2020] Ayman Alhelbawy, M. Lattimer, Udo Kruschwitz, C. Fox, and Massimo Poesio. An nlp- powered human rights monitoring platform. Expert Syst. Appl., 153:113365,

    2020

  16. [2025]

    [Iaroshev et al., 2024] Ivan Iaroshev, Ramalingam Pillai, Le- andro Vaglietti, and T. Hanne. Evaluating retrieval- augmented generation models for financial report question and answering. Applied Sciences,

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.