Chat3GPP: An Open-Source Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for 3GPP Documents

Jungang Hu; Limin Xiao; Long Huang; Ming Zhao; Xiujun Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Chat3GPP: An Open-Source Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for 3GPP Documents

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Chat3GPP claims that an off-the-shelf retrieval-augmented generation pipeline beats fine-tuned telecom LLMs on 3GPP question benchmarks.

desk verdict Plausible open-source RAG for 3GPP; the headline comparison mixes benchmarks, but the controlled Tele-Eval re-eval is the real evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13954 v1 pith:A4WE6NKG submitted 2025-01-20 cs.CL cs.AIcs.DCcs.IR

Long Huang , Ming Zhao , Limin Xiao , Xiujun Zhang , Jungang Hu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.DCcs.IR

keywords retrieval-augmentedgeneration3GPPstandardstelecommunicationshybridretrievalreciprocalrankfusionlargelanguagemodelsquestionansweringTeleQnA

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to establish that a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipeline built from off-the-shelf components can answer questions about 3GPP standards more accurately than large language models that were fine-tuned specifically for telecommunications. Chat3GPP combines hybrid retrieval, reranking, and prompt engineering, and requires no domain-specific fine-tuning. On TeleQnA, the paper reports overall accuracy of 0.787 (0.783 for Release 17, 0.791 for Release 18), above the fine-tuned baselines TelecomGPT, Llama-3-8B-Tele-it, and Telco-RAG. On Tele-Eval's open-ended questions, it reports an LLM-judged correctness score of 0.543 overall, roughly double the score of Llama-3-8B-Tele-it. If the claim holds, engineers could keep pace with frequently updated standards simply by updating the document index rather than retraining models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a hybrid retrieval pipeline with two stages. In pre-ranking, BM25 and dense embedding retrieval each return the top $K_1 = 1000$ chunks, and Reciprocal Rank Fusion merges the two rankings and keeps the top tenth of the combined list. In ranking, the BGE-M3 cross-encoder jointly encodes each query-chunk pair and returns the top $K_2 = 5$ chunks to the generator. Chunks are produced by hierarchical splitting along section headings followed by recursive character splitting at roughly 1250 characters, and they are stored in Elasticsearch with an inverted index and an HNSW graph for approximate nearest-neighbor search. The design lets the system match exact specification terminology through keywords while still retrieving semantically related passages, so the generator receives the most relevant standard text without having been tuned on telecom data.

What would settle it

Run all four systems on the same held-out subset of TeleQnA and Tele-Eval questions with the same 3GPP Release 17 and 18 corpus and identical prompts; if Chat3GPP no longer outperforms the baselines, the central claim is refuted. A cheaper check is to remove the reranking stage and see whether the accuracy gap disappears, which would show the hybrid pre-ranking alone is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a two-stage retrieval pipeline closes the telecom domain gap without any model training. Chat3GPP first pre-ranks candidate chunks using BM25 keyword search and dense embedding similarity, merges the two lists with Reciprocal Rank Fusion, then reranks the survivors with a cross-encoder (BGE-M3) and feeds the top chunks to Llama-3-8B-Instruct with task-specific prompts. With this setup, the reported TeleQnA accuracy reaches 0.783 on Release 17 and 0.791 on Release 18, compared with 0.725 and 0.784 for Telco-RAG and 0.671 overall for TelecomGPT. On Tele-Eval, the LLM-Eval score is 0.506/0.573/0.543 across Release 17/18/overall, versus 0.283/0.265/0.273 for Llama-3-8B-Tele-it. The paper interprets these results as showing that retrieval beats telecom-specific training for 3GPP document understanding.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the published scores for TelecomGPT and Telco-RAG were obtained under the same conditions as Chat3GPP; if the question subsets, retrieval corpora, or prompts differed, the claimed performance advantage could be an artifact of test selection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported numbers hold, a no-fine-tuning RAG system outperforms fine-tuned telecom LLMs on both existing telecom QA benchmarks, so retrieval is a viable alternative to domain-specific training.
Because the pipeline is agnostic to the source documents, the same system can be pointed at future 3GPP releases or at other standards bodies' documents without retraining the model.
Since Elasticsearch loads data on demand rather than holding all embeddings in RAM, the framework can scale to much larger standards corpora than in-memory vector stores.
The retrieval index can be refreshed as new releases appear, giving engineers answers that track the current versions of the standards rather than a model's training cutoff.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same hybrid retrieval recipe is a direct experiment to run on other dense, frequently updated standards corpora such as IETF RFCs or safety codes, where the portability argument should be testable.
The reported advantage over TelecomGPT and Telco-RAG depends on the comparison being apples-to-apples; a controlled rerun with identical question subsets, retrieval corpora, and prompts would separate the pipeline's contribution from test-set differences.
Because the same BGE-M3 model serves as embedder and reranker, the marginal value of the reranking stage is not measured; ablating it would show how much of the gain comes from the cross-encoder.
Fine-tuning and retrieval are complementary rather than mutually exclusive; a model that is lightly tuned on telecom data and then augmented with this retriever is the natural next step suggested by the paper's own limitations discussion.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a workmanlike open-source RAG pipeline for 3GPP specs with one controlled re-evaluation that looks good, and one headline claim that doesn't yet hold up. Worth engaging, but the abstract overstates what Table II shows.

What's new: Chat3GPP itself as an artifact. The components are standard (BM25, BGE-M3, HNSW, Elasticsearch, RRF, prompt engineering) and Telco-RAG already did RAG for 3GPP. The contribution is a concrete combination plus a new eval on public datasets. The pipeline is described in enough detail to reproduce, and the code is on GitHub. That is real value, especially for engineers who want something working rather than a research novelty.

The strongest evidence is Table III: same-setting re-evaluation of Llama-3-8B-Tele-it on Tele-Eval with the same LLM-as-judge, where Chat3GPP scores 0.506/0.573 vs 0.283/0.265. That is an apples-to-apples comparison and it's directionally clear. Also good: the LLM-as-judge is a separate external model (Mixtral), so the circularity concern is minimal.

Soft spots. Table II is not a controlled comparison. TelecomGPT's 0.671 comes from 3,500 questions on a different benchmark (Lexicon, Standards Overview, Standards Specifications), not the TeleQnA subset used for Chat3GPP. Telco-RAG's numbers are adopted from its own paper with no evidence of identical question split, corpus, top-k, prompt, or answer parser. So the "superior performance" claim in the abstract rests on numbers measured under different conditions. Only Llama-3-8B-Tele-it was re-evaluated in-setting, and only on Tele-Eval, not TeleQnA. The margins in Table II could reflect test-set mismatch. This is fixable: rerun or honestly relabel the baselines.

Also minor: the paper calls BGE-M3 a "cross-encoder" reranker that "jointly encodes the query and text chunks." BGE-M3 is a bi-encoder embedding model; it doesn't do cross-encoder reranking. That's a factual error in the method description, and it matters because the ranking stage's behavior is otherwise unexplained. No variance or significance is reported anywhere, and the Tele-Eval sample size (26k/32k questions) isn't stated to be fully evaluated or subsampled.

The limitations section is honest, the related work covers the right prior art, and the claims about memory efficiency versus FAISS are plausible. The core idea—off-the-shelf RAG beats fine-tuned telecom LLMs—holds up at least for the one controlled comparison, but it's one benchmark, one baseline, one judge.

Who should read it: telecom engineers wanting a working RAG baseline, and anyone doing domain RAG for technical standards. It deserves a serious peer review, with the expectation that Table II gets substantively revised and the reranker description corrected.

Recommendation: send it, conditional on major revision focused on the benchmark-matching issue.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. Chat3GPP is an open-source retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework for 3GPP technical specifications. The system pre-processes Release 17/18 documents with hierarchical and recursive chunking, stores chunks in Elasticsearch with inverted and HNSW indexes, retrieves candidates via BM25 and BGE-M3 embedding search fused by Reciprocal Rank Fusion, reranks with BGE-M3, and generates answers with Llama-3-8B-Instruct using prompts adapted to multiple-choice and open-ended questions. The authors evaluate on TeleQnA and Tele-Eval, reporting accuracy and LLM-Eval scores, and claim superior performance over TelecomGPT, Llama-3-8B-Tele-it, and Telco-RAG without domain-specific fine-tuning.

Significance. The central idea is timely and potentially useful: a fine-tuning-free RAG pipeline built from off-the-shelf components that appears to outperform telecom-specialized LLMs on two public benchmarks. The manuscript has concrete strengths: the code is open source, the evaluation uses public datasets, the LLM-as-judge is an external model (Mixtral-8x7B), and one baseline (Llama-3-8B-Tele-it) is re-evaluated under identical conditions on Tele-Eval. If the comparisons are brought under a uniform protocol, the result would be a practical and reusable contribution. At present, however, the headline superiority claim is not yet supported because the main comparison table mixes numbers from different evaluation settings, and the methodological description of the reranking stage is inaccurate.

major comments (3)

[Section IV-B, Table II] The claim of 'superior performance compared to existing methods' is load-bearing and rests on Table II, but that table is not a controlled comparison. The TelecomGPT row (Overall 0.671) is explicitly stated to come from the original paper's evaluation on 3,500 questions covering Lexicon, Standards Overview, and Standards Specifications, not from the TeleQnA Rel.17/Rel.18 subsets used for Chat3GPP. The Telco-RAG numbers (Rel.17 0.725, Rel.18 0.784) are adopted from the Telco-RAG paper without evidence that the same TeleQnA question subset, corpus release, retrieval parameters, prompt, or answer parser were used. Only Llama-3-8B-Tele-it appears to have been re-evaluated, and the re-evaluation is described only for Tele-Eval (Section IV-B, Table III). Consequently, the margins in Table II may reflect different test sets, different retrieval corpora, or different evaluation protocols rather than the proposed framework. The authors should re-run all baselines under the same protocol, or explicitly mark external rows as reported under different conditions and remove the superiority claim for those comparisons.
[Section III-C2 and Algorithm 1] The reranking stage is misdescribed. The text says 'the BGE-M3 model, based on a cross-encoder architecture, jointly encodes the query and text chunks to generate new embedding vectors, computes cosine similarity.' BGE-M3 is a bi-encoder embedding model, not a cross-encoder, and it does not jointly encode a query-passage pair in the cross-encoder sense. If the reranking step actually uses BGE-M3 by encoding query and passages separately and computing cosine similarity, it is not a cross-encoder reranker, and Algorithm 1's phrase 'jointly encode the query and chunk using the rerank model' is inaccurate. This matters for reproducibility and for the claimed two-stage retrieval design. Use an actual cross-encoder reranker (e.g., bge-reranker-v2-m3) or correct the description to reflect what is implemented.
[Section IV-B, Tables II-III] No measure of variance or statistical significance is reported for any of the headline numbers. The Tele-Eval comparison is the cleanest because Llama-3-8B-Tele-it was re-evaluated under the same conditions, yet even there the paper reports single scalar LLM-Eval scores (0.506 vs 0.283 on Rel.17) without confidence intervals or repeated runs. Since LLM-Eval uses a stochastic judge and the generation model is stochastic, the authors should provide at least a few independent runs or a significance test to support 'superior performance across all evaluation datasets.' Without this, even the controlled comparison is not fully established.

minor comments (4)

[Section III-B2] The citation to BGE-M3 appears as '[?]' in the text; it should be [18].
[Throughout] Please correct typos: 'implemention' should be 'implementation'; 'focued' should be 'focused'; 'seperatly' should be 'separately'; Table II 'Finetuing' should be 'Fine-tuning'; and 'LLama-3-8B-Tele-it' is inconsistently capitalized.
[Algorithm 1] The phrase 'return the 1/10 Top-K1 of the combined chunks' is ambiguous. If Top-K1=1000 (Table I), specify that this means 100 chunks are kept before reranking, and define the fraction as a separate parameter.
[Section III-C1] The paper defines Top-K1 twice (once per retrieval method) and then applies RRF; it would be clearer to name them K1_bm25 and K1_dense, or state explicitly that both use the same value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Chat3GPP is a RAG pipeline evaluated on external benchmarks; reported baseline differences are a benchmarking-validity concern, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain in which a claimed result is equivalent to its own inputs. Chat3GPP is an off-the-shelf RAG pipeline (BM25, BGE-M3 embeddings, RRF, Elasticsearch, Llama-3-8B-Instruct), and its hyperparameters (chunk size ~1250 characters, Top-K1=1000, Top-K2=5) are design choices rather than parameters fitted to reproduce benchmark scores. Evaluation is performed on two external public datasets, TeleQnA and Tele-Eval, and the LLM-as-judge on Tele-Eval is a separate external model (Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct), with Llama-3-8B-Tele-it re-evaluated in the same setting. The only notable concern is that TelecomGPT's Overall 0.671 and Telco-RAG's Rel.17 0.725 / Rel.18 0.784 are adopted from their original papers without evidence that identical TeleQnA subsets, corpus versions, prompts, and parsers were used; Section IV-B even states that TelecomGPT 'was evaluated on 3,500 questions' covering Lexicon, Standards Overview, and Standards Specifications rather than the TeleQnA subset used for Chat3GPP. This undercuts the strictness of the 'superior performance' comparison, but it is a benchmark-validity and reproducibility issue, not circularity: none of the compared baseline numbers are produced by fitting Chat3GPP's own components, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or to a definition of the target result in terms of itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on design hyperparameters (chunk size, Top-K values, RRF fraction) and on the validity of the evaluation datasets and the LLM-as-judge protocol. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

chunk_size = about 1,250 characters
Chosen for the embedding model's context limit and set in Table I; affects retrieval granularity.
top_k1 = 1,000
Number of candidate chunks kept after pre-ranking; set in Table I and Algorithm 1.
top_k2 = 5
Number of chunks fed to the LLM after ranking; set in Table I and Algorithm 1.
rrf_keep_fraction = 1/10
Fraction of the fused Top-K1 list retained before ranking, per Algorithm 1 line 7.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption TeleQnA and Tele-Eval are valid and unbiased benchmarks for telecom LLM knowledge.
The evaluation uses these two public datasets and treats their ground truth as correct; Section IV-A.
domain assumption Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct as a judge (LLM-Eval) gives reliable correctness labels for open-ended answers.
Open-ended answers are scored by LLM-Eval with Mixtral, following the prompt from [6]; Section IV-B.
domain assumption The scraped Release 17 and Release 18 3GPP documents contain the information needed to answer the evaluation questions.
The retrieval corpus is built from these documents and the system's answers rely on retrieved chunks; Section III-A.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chat3GPP: An Open-Source Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for 3GPP Documents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A4WE6NKG

@misc{pith2026250113954,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chat3GPP: An Open-Source Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for 3GPP Documents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A4WE6NKG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13954}
}

read the original abstract

The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) documents is key standards in global telecommunications, while posing significant challenges for engineers and researchers in the telecommunications field due to the large volume and complexity of their contents as well as the frequent updates. Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in natural language processing tasks, but their general-purpose nature limits their effectiveness in specific domains like telecommunications. To address this, we propose Chat3GPP, an open-source retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework tailored for 3GPP specifications. By combining chunking strategies, hybrid retrieval and efficient indexing methods, Chat3GPP can efficiently retrieve relevant information and generate accurate responses to user queries without requiring domain-specific fine-tuning, which is both flexible and scalable, offering significant potential for adapting to other technical standards beyond 3GPP. We evaluate Chat3GPP on two telecom-specific datasets and demonstrate its superior performance compared to existing methods, showcasing its potential for downstream tasks like protocol generation and code automation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13954 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The overview of the proposed Chat3GPP. Text Extraction. We extract the text content, excluding images and tables, ensuring that only textual data was used for further processing. B. Indexing Phase In the Indexing phase, documents will be processed, segmented, and transformed into vectorial representations to be stored in a embedding database. We use the following strategies including text segmentation, embeddings,… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

The Llama 3 Herd of Models,

A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Letman et al., “The Llama 3 Herd of Models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[2]

Mixtral of Experts,

A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Roux, A. Mensch, B. Savary, C. Bamford et al., “Mixtral of Experts,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04088 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[3]

Understanding Telecom Language Through Large Language Models,

L. Bariah, H. Zou, Q. Zhao, B. Mouhouche, F. Bader, and M. Debbah, “Understanding Telecom Language Through Large Language Models,” in GLOBECO 2023-2023 IEEE Global Communications Conference, pp. 6542–6547, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

TeleQnA: A Benchmark Dataset to Assess Large Language Models Telecommunications Knowledge,

A. Maatouk, F. Ayed, N. Piovesan, A. D. Domenico, M. Debbah, and Z.-Q. Luo, “TeleQnA: A Benchmark Dataset to Assess Large Language Models Telecommunications Knowledge,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15051, 2023

arXiv 2023
[5]

TelecomGPT: A Framework to Build Telecom-Specfic Large Language Models,

H. Zou, Q. Zhao, Y . Tian, L. Bariah, F. Bader, T. Lestable, and M. Debbah, “TelecomGPT: A Framework to Build Telecom-Specfic Large Language Models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09424 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[6]

Tele-LLMs: A Series of Specialized Large Language Models for Telecommunications,

A. Maatouk, K. C. Ampudia, R. Ying, and L. Tassiulas, “Tele-LLMs: A Series of Specialized Large Language Models for Telecommunications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05314 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[7]

Telco-RAG: Navigating the Challenges of Retrieval- Augmented Language Models for Telecommunications,

A.-L. Bornea, F. Ayed, A. D. Domenico, N. Piovesan, and A. Maatouk, “Telco-RAG: Navigating the Challenges of Retrieval- Augmented Language Models for Telecommunications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15939, 2024

arXiv 2024
[8]

Large language models for telecom: Forthcoming impact on the indus- try

A. Maatouk, N. Piovesan, F. Ayed, A. D. Domenico, and M. Debbah, “Large language models for telecom: Forthcoming impact on the indus- try.” IEEE Communications Magazine , 2024

work page 2024

Show all 23 references

[9]

Test Code Generation for Telecom Software Systems using Two-Stage Generative Model,

M. Nabeel, D. D. Nimara, and T. Zanouda, “Test Code Generation for Telecom Software Systems using Two-Stage Generative Model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09249, 2024

2024 arXiv
[10]

Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks

P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal et al., “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33: 9459-9474, 2020

2020
[11]

RAFT: Adapting Language Model to Domain Specific RAG,

T. Zhang, S. G. Patil, N. Jain, S. Shen, M. Zaharia, I. Stoica, and J. E. Gonzalez, “RAFT: Adapting Language Model to Domain Specific RAG,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10131 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[12]

Corrective Retrieval Augmented Generation,

S.-Q. Yan, J.-C. Gu, Y . Zhu, and Z.-H. Ling, “Corrective Retrieval Augmented Generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15884 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[13]

RA- ISF: Learning to Answer and Understand from Retrieval Augmentation via Iterative Self-Feedback,

Y . Liu, X. Peng, X. Zhang, W. Liu, J. Yin, J. Cao, and Tianyu Du, “RA- ISF: Learning to Answer and Understand from Retrieval Augmentation via Iterative Self-Feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06840 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[14]

Specifications by series

3GPP, “Specifications by series.” [Online]. Available: https://www. 3gpp.org/specifications-technologies/specifications-by-series
[15]

The Probabilistic Relevance Frame- work: BM25 and Beyond,

S. Robertson, and H. Zaragoza, “The Probabilistic Relevance Frame- work: BM25 and Beyond,” Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 333-389, 2009

2009
[16]

A vector space model for automatic indexing,

G. Salton, A. Wong, and C. S. Yang, “A vector space model for automatic indexing,” Communications of the ACM , 18(11), 613-620, 1975

1975
[17]

Recursively split by character,

Langchain, “Recursively split by character,” https://python.langchain. com/docs/modules/data connection/document transformers/recursive text splitter, 2023

2023
[18]

BGE M3-Embedding: Multi-Lingual, Multi-Functionality, Multi-Granularity Text Embeddings Through Self-Knowledge Distillation,

J. Chen, S. Xiao, P. Zhang, K. Luo, D. Lian, and Z. Liu, “BGE M3-Embedding: Multi-Lingual, Multi-Functionality, Multi-Granularity Text Embeddings Through Self-Knowledge Distillation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03216, 2024

2024 arXiv
[19]

V , Elasticsearch

Elasticsearch, B. V , Elasticsearch. software], version, 6(1), 2018

2018
[20]

Reciprocal rank fusion outperforms condorcet and individual rank learning methods,

G. V . Cormack, C. L. A. Clarke, and S. Buettcher, “Reciprocal rank fusion outperforms condorcet and individual rank learning methods,” in Proceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval , pp. 758–759, 2009

2009
[21]

A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications,

P. Sahoo, A. K. Singh, S. Saha, V . Jain, S. Mondal, and A. Chadha, “A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07927 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[22]

Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries,

C.-Y . Lin, “Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries,” In Text summarization branches out , pp. 74-81, 2004

2004
[23]

BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation,

K. Papineni, S. Roukos, T. Ward, and W.-J. Zhu, “BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation,” in Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pp. 311-318, 2002

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The Llama 3 Herd of Models,

A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Letman et al., “The Llama 3 Herd of Models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

Mixtral of Experts,

A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Roux, A. Mensch, B. Savary, C. Bamford et al., “Mixtral of Experts,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04088 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Understanding Telecom Language Through Large Language Models,

L. Bariah, H. Zou, Q. Zhao, B. Mouhouche, F. Bader, and M. Debbah, “Understanding Telecom Language Through Large Language Models,” in GLOBECO 2023-2023 IEEE Global Communications Conference, pp. 6542–6547, 2023

work page 2023

[4] [4]

TeleQnA: A Benchmark Dataset to Assess Large Language Models Telecommunications Knowledge,

A. Maatouk, F. Ayed, N. Piovesan, A. D. Domenico, M. Debbah, and Z.-Q. Luo, “TeleQnA: A Benchmark Dataset to Assess Large Language Models Telecommunications Knowledge,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15051, 2023

arXiv 2023

[5] [5]

TelecomGPT: A Framework to Build Telecom-Specfic Large Language Models,

H. Zou, Q. Zhao, Y . Tian, L. Bariah, F. Bader, T. Lestable, and M. Debbah, “TelecomGPT: A Framework to Build Telecom-Specfic Large Language Models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09424 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Tele-LLMs: A Series of Specialized Large Language Models for Telecommunications,

A. Maatouk, K. C. Ampudia, R. Ying, and L. Tassiulas, “Tele-LLMs: A Series of Specialized Large Language Models for Telecommunications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05314 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Telco-RAG: Navigating the Challenges of Retrieval- Augmented Language Models for Telecommunications,

A.-L. Bornea, F. Ayed, A. D. Domenico, N. Piovesan, and A. Maatouk, “Telco-RAG: Navigating the Challenges of Retrieval- Augmented Language Models for Telecommunications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15939, 2024

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Large language models for telecom: Forthcoming impact on the indus- try

A. Maatouk, N. Piovesan, F. Ayed, A. D. Domenico, and M. Debbah, “Large language models for telecom: Forthcoming impact on the indus- try.” IEEE Communications Magazine , 2024

work page 2024