REVIEW 1 cited by
Evaluating Tool-Augmented Agents in Remote Sensing Platforms
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Tool-augmented Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in remote sensing (RS) applications. However, existing benchmarks assume question-answering input templates over predefined image-text data pairs. These standalone instructions neglect the intricacies of realistic user-grounded tasks. Consider a geospatial analyst: they zoom in a map area, they draw a region over which to collect satellite imagery, and they succinctly ask "Detect all objects here". Where is `here`, if it is not explicitly hardcoded in the image-text template, but instead is implied by the system state, e.g., the live map positioning? To bridge this gap, we present GeoLLM-QA, a benchmark designed to capture long sequences of verbal, visual, and click-based actions on a real UI platform. Through in-depth evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs over a diverse set of 1,000 tasks, we offer insights towards stronger agents for RS applications.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Butterfly Effects in Toolchains: A Comprehensive Analysis of Failed Parameter Filling in LLM Tool-Agent Systems
LLM tool agents fail at parameter filling in five recurring ways; perturbing tool documents and user queries drives most failures, and invented parameter names are tied to the model rather than the input.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.