Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

GeoSR: Cognitive-Agentic Framework for Probing Geospatial Knowledge Boundaries via Iterative Self-Refinement

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GeoSR wraps an LLM's geospatial predictions in a three-agent self-refinement loop that, on the paper's experiments, improves rank accuracy and reduces geographic bias in every model-task combination tested.

desk verdict Useful empirical idea, but the mechanism claim is unproven without a spatial-smoothing baseline, and the paper misreports its own covariate ablation. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04080 v1 pith:HW744PXZ submitted 2025-08-06 cs.AI stat.OT

Jinfan Tang , Kunming Wu , Ruifeng Gongxie , Yuya He , Yuankai Wu This is my paper
classification cs.AIstat.OT
keywords largelanguagemodelsgeospatialreasoningagenticpromptingTobler'sFirstLawself-refinementgeographicbiasspatialpredictionzero-shot
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 sets out to show that large language models can make better and fairer geospatial predictions if their reasoning is steered by a core geographic principle—things near each other are more related—rather than by more data or retraining. It proposes GeoSR, a loop of three collaborating agents that selects relevant same-location variables, feeds the model its own earlier predictions from the ten nearest locations, and decides when to stop refining. Tested on infant mortality, GDP, temperature, and precipitation across four LLM families, GeoSR reports higher Spearman rank correlation and lower absolute geographic bias in all sixteen combinations, with the largest gains on smaller general-purpose models. A reader should care because geographic bias and spatial inconsistency are concrete failure modes of LLM-powered prediction, and the paper offers a prompt-level remedy that works on any model API.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is an iterative self-refinement loop whose point-selection agent retrieves the LLM's own predictions from the ten nearest locations and inserts them as reference values in the next round's prompt, while a variable-selection agent adds same-location covariates and a refine agent controls when the loop stops. This concretizes Tobler's First Law—'near things are more related than distant things'—as an operational prompt structure, and repeated rounds propagate local spatial structure into every subsequent prediction.

What would settle it

Give the baseline predictions to a spatial smoother: set each location's output to the mean of the baseline predictions at its ten nearest locations, or fit a simple kriging surface to the baseline outputs. If that smoothing-only baseline reproduces GeoSR's Spearman and bias numbers on infant mortality, GDP, temperature, and precipitation, the framework's central claim about agentic reasoning is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that an LLM can become a more accurate and more equitable geospatial predictor without retraining if its prompting loop embeds Tobler's First Law of Geography. GeoSR decomposes that loop into three collaborating agents: a variable-selection agent that gathers covariates at the same location, a point-selection agent that retrieves the model's own earlier predictions at the ten nearest locations, and a refine agent that evaluates prediction quality and decides whether another round is needed. Across four model families and four tasks, the paper reports that GeoSR improves Spearman rank correlation and reduces absolute geographic bias in all sixteen model-task combinations, wit

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that GeoSR's gains come from its agents' spatial reasoning rather than from mechanically handing the model its own nearest-neighbor predictions, which would inflate rank correlation and shrink bias on spatially smooth data by itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any API-accessible LLM can gain geospatial accuracy and fairness from a prompt-level loop, with no fine-tuning and no change to the model's weights.
  • The weakest models gain most: GPT-3.5-Turbo's Spearman correlation on infant mortality rises from 0.445 to 0.747, and its absolute bias nearly vanishes, from -0.188 to -0.006.
  • Refinement depth is a fairness dial: early rounds maximize rank correlation, while continued rounds keep reducing bias even when correlation plateaus or dips.
  • The nearest-10-point self-reference is the workhorse component; removing it costs more accuracy than removing the agent-selected distant points, especially for smaller models.
  • Separating variable and point selection turns a geographic law into an inspectable prompt structure, so each reasoning step can be audited round by round.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A non-agentic control that replaces each prediction with the average of the ten nearest baseline predictions would test whether the gains require LLM reasoning at all; the paper does not report that control.
  • Because the loop recycles the model's own outputs, later rounds may be smoothing toward a spatial local mean rather than acquiring new geographic knowledge; comparing round-k outputs to a kriging interpolation of round-1 outputs would settle this.
  • The same three-agent structure should transfer to any domain with a 'near things are more related' prior, such as temperature time series with temporal neighbors, epidemiological spread with contact-network neighbors, or ecology with environmental-neighborhood neighbors.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GeoSR, a multi-agent prompting framework that embeds geographic priors—principally Tobler's First Law—into LLM inference by orchestrating three agents: a variable-selection agent, a point-selection agent that feeds the model its own prior-round predictions from nearby locations, and a refine agent that iterates. The framework is evaluated on four LLMs (GeoGPT, GPT-3.5-Turbo, GPT-4o-mini, DeepSeek-V3) across four spatially autocorrelated tasks (infant mortality, GDP, temperature, precipitation), with Spearman correlation and a 'Bias' metric reported against external ground-truth datasets. The abstract and conclusion claim consistent improvements in accuracy and fairness over standard prompting strategies.

Significance. If the causal attribution holds, GeoSR would be a lightweight, no-fine-tuning method for improving LLM geospatial prediction and fairness, with practical relevance across physical and socioeconomic tasks. The paper's strengths include evaluation against external ground-truth datasets (WorldClim, downscaled GDP, infant mortality), absence of fitted parameters in the reported correlations, open code, and ablation studies probing the contribution of each agent. The core issue is that the mechanism is confounded: the point-selection agent effectively performs spatial interpolation of the model's own prior predictions, and no non-agentic smoothing baseline is provided. This, together with internal inconsistencies in the ablation tables, makes the central claim 'GeoSR consistently enhances prediction accuracy and mitigates geographic bias' currently unsupported in its strong form.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Table 3] The central claim that agentic reasoning drives the gains is not supported because the point-selection agent feeds the LLM its own prior-round predictions at the 10 nearest locations. For spatially autocorrelated targets, a simple non-agentic baseline—e.g., inverse-distance-weighted averaging of baseline predictions at the same 10 neighbors—would be expected to raise Spearman correlation and shrink signed bias without any reasoning. The paper does not include such a control. The ablation results are compatible with a pure smoothing account: removing the nearest-10 component ('GeoSR w/o near. 10 pts') produces the largest drops for GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4o-mini, while removing the agent-selected points often has little effect. Please add a non-agentic spatial interpolation/smoothing baseline using the same neighborhood information and report whether the agentic components add anything bey
  2. [§5.2, Table 4] The text states that 'omitting the external variables leads to a consistent degradation in both prediction accuracy and fairness,' but Table 4 contradicts this for temperature: the w/o ext. vars variant has higher Spearman than full GeoSR for all four models (GPT-3.5-Turbo: 0.649 vs 0.644; DeepSeek-V3: 0.579 vs 0.563; GPT-4o-mini: 0.524 vs 0.517; GeoGPT: 0.781 vs 0.771). The sentence 'GeoGPT Temperature Spearman drops from 0.771 to 0.781' is also misreported—it rises. This inconsistency is load-bearing for the claimed importance of the variable-selection agent and must be corrected, or the conclusion qualified to reflect the actual pattern.
  3. [§5.2, Table 3] The claim that 'GeoSR w/o pt-sel. pts consistently exhibits the smallest absolute bias' is not supported by the table. For example, full GeoSR has lower absolute bias in GPT-3.5-Turbo Temperature (0.024 vs 0.031) and GPT-4o-mini Precipitation (0.011 vs 0.044), while the w/o pt-sel. variant has lower absolute bias in many other cells. The 'consistently' wording overstates the pattern and obscures the nuanced fairness trade-off the paper otherwise describes. Please report the actual pattern and avoid universal claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The caption says 'percentage decrease in Bias' but GPT-3.5-Turbo Precipitation shows +25.8%, i.e., an increase in bias. Please clarify whether the reported percentage is signed or absolute, and adjust the wording or the metric definition.
  2. [§2 or wherever Bias is defined] Please define the Bias metric precisely (e.g., mean signed difference between predicted and ground-truth values) and state how its sign relates to fairness. The text alternates between signed values and 'absolute bias,' which is confusing.
  3. [Figure 8] The caption lists left/middle/right panels, but the panels are not explicitly labeled. Add labels so readers can identify GeoSR, ground truth, and base GeoLLM without ambiguity.
  4. [Table 2 and Table 4] Several reported differences are small (e.g., DeepSeek-V3 infant mortality +1.71%, GeoGPT temperature +2.39%). Without confidence intervals, standard errors, or significance tests, it is difficult to know which of these improvements are meaningful. Please report variance or significance information.
  5. [§5.2] The text contains minor presentation errors, e.g., 'Our contribution are as following' in the introduction, and inconsistent model naming ('ChatGPT (GPT-3.5-Turbo)' in the ablation text vs 'GPT-3.5-Turbo' in tables).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: GeoSR's gains are measured against external ground truth; missing smoothing baseline is a control concern, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that GeoSR improves Spearman correlation and reduces bias against external ground-truth datasets (WorldClim, downscaled GDP, infant mortality). The reported metrics are not defined in terms of GeoSR's design; they are rank correlations and signed biases computed against held-out observations. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions: the only tuned quantities are hyperparameters (number of neighbors, refinement rounds), and the ablation studies vary components rather than fitting the final numbers. The point-selection mechanism feeds the LLM its own prior-round predictions from nearby locations, which could produce mechanical spatial smoothing, but that is an omitted-control validity threat, not a circularity: the outcome is still an empirical measurement against outside data. The paper also contains no load-bearing self-citations: its references to GeoLLM, GeoGPT, and other baselines are external prior work, and no uniqueness or foundational theorem from the authors is invoked to force a choice. Indeed, the ablation in Table 3 admits that removing the agent-selected points often yields the smallest absolute bias, which weakens the causal claim that agentic reasoning drives fairness, but this does not reduce the derivation to its inputs by construction. Therefore no circular step is present, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on spatial autocorrelation of LLM outputs, the reliability of the model's own prior-round predictions as references, and an undefined Bias metric; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • nearest_neighbor_count_k = 10
    Number of nearest reference points used in the point-selection stage; chosen by hand (Section 5.2), no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • number_of_agent_selected_points
    The point-selection agent's additional context points are mentioned but their count is not specified in the provided text; a hidden design choice that affects results (Table 3).
  • refinement_rounds_or_stopping_threshold = peak at rounds 2-3 per Figure 9
    The refine agent decides when to stop; Figure 9 shows accuracy peaks around round 2-3 and bias keeps dropping, so the loop length is effectively a hand-tuned trade-off parameter, not fixed or justified.
  • external_covariate_pool = 19 WorldClim bioclimatic variables
    The variable-selection agent chooses from Table 1's fixed WorldClim pool; this curated candidate set is a design choice that constrains the framework's benefit (Table 4).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Tobler's First Law of Geography applies to LLM prediction fields, meaning nearby predictions are more related than distant ones.
    Invoked in the Introduction and Section 5.2 as the foundation of the point-selection mechanism.
  • domain assumption The LLM's own prior-round predictions at nearby locations are informative reference context.
    Point-selection agent recycles these predictions (Section 5.2); if prior-round outputs are garbage, the loop would propagate errors.
  • domain assumption The refine agent can evaluate prediction quality and trigger useful refinements without ground-truth access.
    The self-refinement loop (Figure 9, Section 5.2) relies on the model's self-feedback, which is not validated for spatial tasks.
  • domain assumption The ground-truth datasets (WorldClim, downscaled GDP, infant mortality) are valid for the coordinate-based estimation task.
    Tables 2-4 score against these external datasets; dataset biases or misalignment would propagate to the reported correlations.
  • ad hoc to paper The 'Bias' statistic is a meaningful, correctly signed measure of geographic fairness.
    Never defined in the provided text; all equity claims depend on its interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GeoSR: Cognitive-Agentic Framework for Probing Geospatial Knowledge Boundaries via Iterative Self-Refinement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HW744PXZ

@misc{pith2026250804080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GeoSR: Cognitive-Agentic Framework for Probing Geospatial Knowledge Boundaries via Iterative Self-Refinement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HW744PXZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04080}
}
read the original abstract

Recent studies have extended the application of large language models (LLMs) to geographic problems, revealing surprising geospatial competence even without explicit spatial supervision. However, LLMs still face challenges in spatial consistency, multi-hop reasoning, and geographic bias. To address these issues, we propose GeoSR, a self-refining agentic reasoning framework that embeds core geographic principles -- most notably Tobler's First Law of Geography -- into an iterative prediction loop. In GeoSR, the reasoning process is decomposed into three collaborating agents: (1) a variable-selection agent that selects relevant covariates from the same location; (2) a point-selection agent that chooses reference predictions at nearby locations generated by the LLM in previous rounds; and (3) a refine agent that coordinates the iterative refinement process by evaluating prediction quality and triggering further rounds when necessary. This agentic loop progressively improves prediction quality by leveraging both spatial dependencies and inter-variable relationships. We validate GeoSR on tasks ranging from physical-world property estimation to socioeconomic prediction. Experimental results show consistent improvements over standard prompting strategies, demonstrating that incorporating geostatistical priors and spatially structured reasoning into LLMs leads to more accurate and equitable geospatial predictions. The code of GeoSR is available at https://github.com/JinfanTang/GeoSR.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. 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...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Mapgpt: an autonomous framework for mapping by integrating large language model and cartographic tools

    Yifan Zhang, Zhengting He, Jingxuan Li, Jianfeng Lin, Qingfeng Guan, and Wenhao Yu. Mapgpt: an autonomous framework for mapping by integrating large language model and cartographic tools. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 51(6):717–743, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Advancing spatial reasoning in large language models: An in-depth evaluation and enhancement using the stepgame benchmark

    Fangjun Li, David C Hogg, and Anthony G Cohn. Advancing spatial reasoning in large language models: An in-depth evaluation and enhancement using the stepgame benchmark. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 18500–18507, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Spatialrgpt: Grounded spatial reasoning in vision-language models

    An-Chieh Cheng, Hongxu Yin, Yang Fu, Qiushan Guo, Ruihan Yang, Jan Kautz, Xiaolong Wang, and Sifei Liu. Spatialrgpt: Grounded spatial reasoning in vision-language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:135062–135093, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Large language models are geographically biased

    Rohin Manvi, Samar Khanna, Marshall Burke, David B Lobell, and Stefano Ermon. Large language models are geographically biased. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 34654–34669. PMLR, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners

    Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th 13 A PREPRINT - S EPTEMBER 20, 2025 International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3816–3830, 2021

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    J. Wei, D. Xiong, P. Wang, and M. Zhou. Chain of Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 878–892, La Jolla, Calif, 2022. Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Madaan, N

    A. Madaan, N. Tandon, P. Gupta, S. Hallinan, and Y . Yang. Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback. In Proceedings of the Sixty-First Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7697– 7711, Stroudsburg, Pa, 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2023

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Camel: Communicative agents for" mind" exploration of large language model society

    Guohao Li, Hasan Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Bernard Ghanem. Camel: Communicative agents for" mind" exploration of large language model society. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:51991–52008, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    S. Hong, K. Zhang, J. Song, Z. Wang, and D. Xu. MCCD: Multi-Agent Collaboration-based Compositional Diffusion for Complex Text-to-Image Generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10129–10139, Piscataway, NJ, 2025. IEEE

    2025

  3. [11]

    A computer movie simulating urban growth in the detroit region

    Waldo R Tobler. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the detroit region. Economic geography, 46(sup1):234–240, 1970

    1970

  4. [12]

    N. Cressie. Statistics for Spatial Data. Wiley, New York, 1993

    1993

  5. [13]

    The theory of regionalised variables and its applications.Les Cahiers du Centre de Morphologie Mathématique, 5:212, 1971

    George Matheron. The theory of regionalised variables and its applications.Les Cahiers du Centre de Morphologie Mathématique, 5:212, 1971

    1971

  6. [14]

    Urbangpt: Spatio-temporal large language models

    Zhonghang Li, Lianghao Xia, Jiabin Tang, Yong Xu, Lei Shi, Long Xia, Dawei Yin, and Chao Huang. Urbangpt: Spatio-temporal large language models. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 5351–5362, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Lobell, and Stefano Ermon

    Rohin Manvi, Samar Khanna, Gengchen Mai, Marshall Burke, David B. Lobell, and Stefano Ermon. GeoLLM: Extracting geospatial knowledge from large language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Geogpt: Understanding and processing geospatial tasks through an autonomous gpt

    Yifan Zhang, Cheng Wei, Shangyou Wu, Zhengting He, and Wenhao Yu. Geogpt: Understanding and processing geospatial tasks through an autonomous gpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07930, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    K2: A foundation language model for geoscience knowledge understanding and utilization

    Cheng Deng, Tianhang Zhang, Zhongmou He, Qiyuan Chen, Yuanyuan Shi, Yi Xu, Luoyi Fu, Weinan Zhang, Xinbing Wang, Chenghu Zhou, et al. K2: A foundation language model for geoscience knowledge understanding and utilization. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Gurnee and M

    W. Gurnee and M. Tegmark. Language Models Represent Space and Time, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Are large language models geospatially knowl- edgeable? In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, pages 1–4, 2023

    Prabin Bhandari, Antonios Anastasopoulos, and Dieter Pfoser. Are large language models geospatially knowl- edgeable? In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, pages 1–4, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Shinn, F

    N. Shinn, F. Cassano, B. Labash, A. Gopinath, and V . Ramanujan. Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 12956–12970, La Jolla, Calif, 2023. Neural Informatio...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Jiang, R

    A. Jiang, R. Arakawa, J. Uesato, and A. Szlam. Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents, 2023. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.02427

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    The proof and measurement of association between two things

    Charles Spearman. The proof and measurement of association between two things. 1961

    1961

  16. [24]

    Kummu, M

    M. Kummu, M. Kosonen, and S. Masoumzadeh Sayyar. Downscaled gridded global dataset for gross domestic product (GDP) per capita PPP over 1990–2022. Scientific Data, 12(1):178, 2025

    1990

  17. [25]

    S. E. Fick and R. J. Hijmans. WorldClim 2: New 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology, 37(12):4302–4315, 2017. 14 A PREPRINT - S EPTEMBER 20, 2025

    2017

  18. [26]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, a...

    2022

  19. [27]

    OpenAI, :, Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P. Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, Aleksander M ˛ adry, Alex Baker-Whitcomb, Alex Beutel, Alex Borzunov, Alex Carney, Alex Chow, Alex Kirillov, Alex Nichol, Alex ...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Zhang, Han Bao, Hanwei Xu, Haocheng Wang, Haowei Zhang, Honghui Ding, Huajian Xin, Huazuo Gao, Hui Li, Hui Qu, J

    DeepSeek-AI, Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, Damai Dai, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Deli Chen, Dongjie Ji, Erhang Li, Fangyun Lin, Fucong Dai, Fuli Luo, Guangbo Hao, Guanting Chen, Guowei L...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.