Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 110 references

Towards Large Reasoning Models for Agriculture

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reasoning-focused AI models outperform conventional LLMs on a new expert agronomy benchmark, yet the best model passes only 36% of the 100 questions.

desk verdict A genuinely useful expert-curated agricultural reasoning dataset, but every headline result is read out of an LLM judge whose fact-level labels are never checked against human annotations. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19259 v2 pith:S4GZQKGL submitted 2025-05-25 cs.LG cs.AI

Hossein Zaremehrjerdi , Shreyan Ganguly , Ashlyn Rairdin , Elizabeth Tranel , Benjamin Feuer , Juan Ignacio Di Salvo , Srikanth Panthulugiri , Hernan Torres Pacin
show 12 more authors
Victoria Moser Sarah Jones Joscif G Raigne Yanben Shen Heidi M. Dornath Aditya Balu Adarsh Krishnamurthy Asheesh K Singh Arti Singh Baskar Ganapathysubramanian Chinmay Hegde Soumik Sarkar
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords agriculturalreasoninglargemodelsbenchmarkfine-tuningLLM-as-judgesynthetictracesopen-endedquestionansweringagronomy
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 agricultural decision support needs and rewards explicit reasoning, not just broad language knowledge. To show this, it introduces AgReason, an expert-curated benchmark of 100 open-ended agronomy questions with gold-standard answers, and AgThoughts, a 44.6K question-answer dataset with reasoning traces. On AgReason, reasoning-focused models consistently beat conventional LLMs, with Gemini 2.5 Flash reaching a 36% pass rate at an F1 threshold of 0.8. The paper further claims that fine-tuning small models (Phi-3, Mistral-7B, LLaMA-3 8B) on AgThoughts unlocks agricultural reasoning, since every AgThinker variant outperforms its base model. A sympathetic reader would care because it supplies a first open-ended, expert-validated testbed for a domain where generic LLM advice is often impractical.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the AgReason evaluation protocol: an LLM-as-judge that decomposes a candidate answer into factual statements, labels each as supported, unsupported, or contradictory relative to the expert gold-standard answer, and computes precision, recall, and F1; a response counts as a pass only when its F1 is at least 0.8, a threshold calibrated against expert judgment on a subset of questions. The companion machinery is the AgThoughts generation pipeline: expert-defined question templates plus contextual modifiers for location, crop, soil, weather, farm size, and practice; responses and reasoning traces produced by DeepSeek-R1; a human-review pass on 200 samples that yields an error taxonomy; and an LLM-based filter that rejects roughly 13.5% of responses. AgThinker models are built by LoRA supervised fine-tuning on the surviving 44.6K pairs, with special tokens marking the reasoning segments.

What would settle it

Take the 100 AgReason questions and have a second set of agronomy experts, not the authors, independently label every statement in a batch of model responses as supported, unsupported, or contradictory, then compare their labels to the LLM judge's labels; if agreement on factual statements is low, or if experts frequently mark the gold answers as incomplete, the reported pass rates and model rankings do not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that open-ended agronomic questions, which depend on location, weather, soil, scale, and farming practice, form a distinct reasoning challenge that current LLMs largely fail. Among thirteen evaluated models, the best, Gemini 2.5 Flash, passes only 36% of the 100 benchmark questions, and reasoning-oriented models occupy the top ranks, suggesting that explicit reasoning helps but is far from sufficient. The second part of the discovery is empirical: supervised fine-tuning of compact models on AgThoughts consistently improves their benchmark pass rate, for example raising Phi-3 from 1% to 5%, which the authors take as evidence that reasoning traces from a larger model can transfer agricultural reasoning to models small enough to run on consumer-grade GPUs.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's numbers all rest on the assumption that an LLM judge correctly decomposes answers into facts and correctly labels each fact as supported, unsupported, or contradictory against the gold answer, so that a precision-recall score of 0.8 really means what an agronomy expert would call complete and satisfactory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reasoning-oriented models are the better starting point for agricultural decision support, since they outperform conventional LLMs across the reported metrics.
  • Small fine-tuned models with a few billion parameters can reach the same order of pass rate as much larger proprietary models, making on-device or low-cost deployment plausible.
  • A benchmark that demands open-ended, context-specific answers exposes failure modes such as regionally wrong varieties, banned chemicals, and ignored farm scale, which multiple-choice science benchmarks cannot detect.
  • Because AgThoughts is estimated to contain about 15% incorrect responses, the fine-tuning gains measured on AgReason are likely a lower bound on what a cleaner dataset could achieve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 36% ceiling on AgReason suggests that open-ended agronomic advice may need retrieval of local extension knowledge or multi-turn clarification, not just more reasoning; the paper itself notes its single-turn setup and excluded Claude because that model favors multi-turn interaction.
  • A direct validity check would be to have a fresh set of agronomy experts independently label the same model responses with the judge protocol and with holistic expert judgment; if statement-level labels disagree with experts on what counts as unsupported or missing, every reported pass rate shifts.
  • The template-plus-modifier pipeline could transfer to other geo-dependent decision domains such as forestry, fisheries, or regional medicine, where contextual details similarly determine whether an answer is practical.
  • The benchmark's use of one gold-standard answer per question means an alternative but equally valid agronomic response is scored as missing or contradictory facts, so absolute pass rates may understate true capability.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces two resources for agricultural reasoning in LLMs: AgThoughts, a 44.6k question-answer dataset with DeepSeek-R1-generated reasoning traces filtered by human experts and LLM-based filters, and AgReason, a 100-question benchmark with gold-standard answers produced by DeepSeek-R1 and then refined by agronomy experts. The authors evaluate thirteen open- and closed-weight models using an LLM-as-judge protocol that decomposes candidate responses into statements, labels each statement as supported, unsupported, or contradictory relative to the gold answer, and computes an F1 score per question with a pass threshold of 0.8. They report that reasoning-oriented models outperform conventional ones (best: Gemini 2.5 Flash at 36% pass rate) and that fine-tuning small models on AgThoughts produces AgThinker models that outperform their base counterparts (e.g., phi-3 from 1% to 5%). The central claims are that AgReason is a valid benchmark for agricultural reasoning and that fine-tuning on AgThoughts unlocks agricultural reasoning abilities in small models.

Significance. If the evaluation pipeline is sound, the paper makes a useful contribution: AgReason appears to be the first expert-curated, open-ended reasoning benchmark in agriculture, and AgThoughts is a large trace-augmented dataset that could enable further domain adaptation work. The expert-in-the-loop construction is a genuine strength, as is the explicit error taxonomy derived from human review of 200 samples and the inclusion of thirteen diverse models in the comparison. However, the significance of the empirical claims is currently limited by the unvalidated LLM-as-judge and by very small effect sizes; the benchmark and dataset contributions are more robust than the conclusions drawn from Table 4.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, 'LLM-as-Judge design for benchmark evaluation'; Appendix J] The LLM-as-judge pipeline performs two unvalidated operations: decomposing candidate responses into factual statements and labeling each as supported/unsupported/contradictory, and decomposing gold-standard answers into discrete facts to compute missing facts. No human annotations of these statement-level labels or fact decompositions are reported; the only human check described is calibration of the F1 >= 0.8 threshold on a subset of benchmark questions. That calibration validates a threshold, not the underlying labels or decompositions. Because every pass rate and model comparison in Table 4 depends on this pipeline, a systematic judge bias (e.g., favoring longer, more fluent, or reasoning-style responses) would change the headline 36% result and the reported SFT gains. The judge model is also never named in the paper, so there is no check on whether it is one of the evaluated models. To support the central claims, the authors should report inter-annotator agreement between the judge's fact-level labels and human labels on a representative sample of benchmark questions, and should name the judge model.
  2. [Section 5.3 and Table 4] The evidence for the fine-tuning claim is extremely thin and is presented without any uncertainty quantification. The reported gains are 1% to 5% for phi-3 (1 to 5 questions out of 100) and 0% to 3% for Mistral-7B and LLaMA-3 8B (0 to 3 questions out of 100). With n=100, the 95% confidence interval for a 5% pass rate is approximately 1.6% to 11.3%, while the interval for a 1% pass rate is approximately 0.03% to 5.4%, so the intervals overlap substantially. A difference of one or two questions can move a model from 0% to 3%. The claim in Section 5.3 that 'fine-tuning resulted in consistent improvements across nearly all question categories' is likewise based on per-category pass rates computed over only 10 questions per category. The paper should provide confidence intervals or significance tests (e.g., a bootstrap over questions) for all pass-rate differences, or explicitly present the results as preliminary observations without the strong 'consistently outperform' claim.
  3. [Sections 3.2, 4, and Appendix G] The gold-standard answers in AgReason derive from DeepSeek-R1 responses that were later refined by experts, and AgThoughts consists of DeepSeek-R1 responses as well. The benchmark therefore measures agreement with model-generated content, and the judge compares candidate responses against these same model-derived gold answers. For the AgThinker experiments, the training data (DeepSeek-R1 traces) and the evaluation reference (DeepSeek-R1-derived gold answers) share a common stylistic and structural source; a model trained to imitate DeepSeek-R1's verbose, trace-like style could obtain higher judge scores without actually improving agronomic reasoning. The Limitations section discusses single-turn prompting but does not address this risk. A concrete mitigation would be to evaluate on a subset of questions with independently authored human gold answers, or to validate the judge's labels against expert judgments on a random sample of candidate responses. Absent such a control, the fine-tuning claim is vulnerable to the alternative explanation of style matching rather than reasoning acquisition.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1] The example question in the figure contains a typo: 'conventional practives' should be 'conventional practices'.
  2. [Section 4, 'LLM-as-Judge design for benchmark evaluation'] The judge model is not identified anywhere in the main text or Appendix J; the prompt template in Listing 1 is generic. Please report the exact judge model and version, since the reliability of the reported scores depends on this choice.
  3. [Section 3.2, 'Response generation and curation'] The sentence 'we estimate this to be approximately 15% based on some quick statistical estimates' is vague; either provide the estimate derivation or remove the approximate number.
  4. [Throughout] The model name 'LLaMa-4' is spelled inconsistently as 'LLaMA-4' in most places, and reference [16] cites the original LLaMA paper (Touvron et al., 2023) rather than a LLaMA-4 source; please correct the reference.
  5. [Figure 3] The x-axis label reads 'F threshold' without the subscript; it should be 'F1 threshold' to match the text.
  6. [Appendix G] The text says 'see G for examples' twice, but the appendix contains no subsection labeled G; please reference the specific example tables or figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the benchmark, judge, and fine-tuning claims are supported by human-expert curation and standard reference-based metrics, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain doing the work.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical comparisons made through a reference-based evaluation against expert-curated gold answers. The gold answers were originally drafted by DeepSeek-R1 but then 'further refined by the experts to generate gold-standard answers' (Section 4), which provides independent human grounding outside the evaluated models. The LLM-as-judge protocol is a measurement instrument rather than a fitted parameter: it decomposes candidate and gold responses into statements and applies the standard precision/recall/F1 definitions (Appendix K), and the F1 >= 0.8 threshold was calibrated against human judgment on a subset of benchmark questions. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to an input by construction, and no benchmark score is defined in terms of the model being scored. The fine-tuning claim is read from the same reference-based comparison, so it is an empirical outcome rather than a consequence of how AgThoughts was filtered. The related-work citations that include overlapping authors (LiveBench, BioTrove) are not load-bearing for the benchmark or fine-tuning conclusions. Concerns about judge label reliability and the model-generated origin of draft answers are validity risks, not circularity: they question whether the measurement is accurate, not whether the derivation is equivalent to its inputs. The paper's Limitations section acknowledges the lack of full expert verification of AgThoughts, but that is an honest scope limitation rather than a circular step. Therefore, no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The reported results rest on hand-set parameters (F1 threshold, rubric weights, retention threshold) and on the assumptions that AI-generated, expert-edited answers are valid ground truth and that an LLM judge measures answer quality accurately. These assumptions are not independently validated beyond the paper's own expert reviews.

free parameters (2)
  • F1 pass threshold = 0.8
    Hand-chosen after expert review of a subset of benchmark responses; all pass rates in Table 4 depend on this threshold.
  • LLM filter rubric weights and total-score threshold = Factual 3, Context 2, Feasibility 1, Logic 2, Completeness 1; keep if score >= 17
    Hand-set weights and threshold used to keep or discard AgThoughts responses; affects the training data for AgThinker.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper DeepSeek-R1 responses, after expert refinement, constitute correct and complete gold-standard answers for agricultural reasoning questions.
    The benchmark's ground truth is originally generated by DeepSeek-R1 and edited by experts; no independent human-written reference or validation against extension literature is provided. Invoked in Section 3.2 and Section 4.
  • domain assumption The 200-sample human evaluation by agronomy graduate students produces an error taxonomy that generalizes to all 51,800 generated responses.
    The paper uses the 200-sample review to build a filtering rubric for the full dataset without assessing inter-annotator agreement or sample representativeness. Invoked in Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption GPT-4.1 accurately applies the rubric to identify incorrect agricultural responses.
    The LLM filter removes ~13.5% of responses, but its accuracy is not measured against human labels on a held-out set; the paper estimates ~15% errors remain. Invoked in Section 3.2 and Appendix D.
  • standard math Precision, recall, and F1 as defined in Appendix K are appropriate measures of answer quality given the judge's statement decomposition.
    Standard definitions; the substantive assumption is the judge's decomposition itself, which is covered by the weakest assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Large Reasoning Models for Agriculture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4GZQKGL

@misc{pith2026250519259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Large Reasoning Models for Agriculture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4GZQKGL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19259}
}
read the original abstract

Agricultural decision-making involves complex, context-specific reasoning, where choices about crops, practices, and interventions depend heavily on geographic, climatic, and economic conditions. Traditional large language models (LLMs) often fall short in navigating this nuanced problem due to limited reasoning capacity. We hypothesize that recent advances in large reasoning models (LRMs) can better handle such structured, domain-specific inference. To investigate this, we introduce AgReason, the first expert-curated open-ended science benchmark with 100 questions for agricultural reasoning. Evaluations across thirteen open-source and proprietary models reveal that LRMs outperform conventional ones, though notable challenges persist, with the strongest Gemini-based baseline achieving 36% accuracy. We also present AgThoughts, a large-scale dataset of 44.6K question-answer pairs generated with human oversight and equipped with synthetically generated reasoning traces. Using AgThoughts, we develop AgThinker, a suite of small reasoning models that can be run on consumer-grade GPUs, and show that our dataset can be effective in unlocking agricultural reasoning abilities in LLMs. Our project page is here: https://baskargroup.github.io/Ag_reasoning/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19259 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow for the development of AgThoughts and AgReason: (1) Base templates are expanded into detailed question–answer pairs using LLMs; (2) Expert feedback on 200 sampled examples identifies common issues; (3) Expert and LLM-based feedback is used to iteratively filter and finalize 44.6k Q&A pairs; (4) The AgReason Benchmark evaluates candidate LLM performance using 100 questions with expert-curated gold-standard a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ten expert-defined agronomic question categories used in AGTHOUGHTS and AGREASON. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Percentage of questions with F1 scores above varying thresholds. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Question-level pass rate (F1 ≥ 0.8) for the base and AGTHINKER models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance of models across each question category. Category-level pass rates (F1 ≥ 0.8) highlight the superior performance of reasoning models. 5.3 Impact of supervised fine-tuning on model performance To evaluate the effectiveness of our fine-tuning approach, we com…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of modifiers by farm size. The distribution of modifiers based on farm size is illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Screenshot of Label Studio interface illustrating the annotation workflow used by experts. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Screenshot of the Label Studio interface illustrating the expert annotation workflow. The interface displays the question, reasoning trace, and final answer under clearly labeled sections. Experts were asked to evaluate the correctness of each component and provide com…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of Evaluation Scores (Log Scale). The x-axis shows the total score (max = 18), and the y-axis shows the log-scaled frequency of responses receiving that score. G Evolution of AGREASON from AGTHOUGHTS A set of 100 question–answer pairs from AGTHOUGHTS was c…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of question attributes in AGREASON, including location, crop type, and modifiers such as farm size and practices. J AGREASON LLM-as-a-Judge Prompt Templates Listing 1: LLM-as-a-Judge Prompt for Benchmarking ############################################### …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The State of Food and Agriculture 2024 – Value-driven transformation of agrifood systems, 2024

    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of Food and Agriculture 2024 – Value-driven transformation of agrifood systems, 2024. URL https://doi.org/10. 4060/cd2616en. Accessed: 2025-05-14

    2024

  2. [2]

    Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate), 2024

    World Bank. Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate), 2024. URL https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS. World Development Indicators. Accessed 12 May 2025

    2024

  3. [3]

    Agriculture, forestry and fishing, value added (% of GDP), 2024

    World Bank. Agriculture, forestry and fishing, value added (% of GDP), 2024. URL https: //data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS. World Development Indicators. Accessed 12 May 2025

    2024

  4. [4]

    ShizishanGPT: An Agricultural Large Language Model Integrating Tools and Resources, 2024

    Shuting Yang, Zehui Liu, and Wolfgang Mayer. ShizishanGPT: An Agricultural Large Language Model Integrating Tools and Resources, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.13537

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    AgroLLM: Connecting Farmers and Agricultural Practices through Large Language Models for Enhanced Knowledge Transfer and Practical Application

    Dinesh Jackson Samuel, Inna Skarga-Bandurova, David Sikolia, and Muhammad Awais. AgroLLM: Connecting Farmers and Agricultural Practices through Large Language Mod- els for Enhanced Knowledge Transfer and Practical Application, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2503.04788

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning, 2025

    DeepSeek-AI. DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Qwen3 Technical Report, 2025

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, Chujie Zheng, Dayiheng Liu, Fan Zhou, Fei Huang, Feng Hu, Hao Ge, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jing Zhou, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, ...

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Sky-T1: Train your own O1 preview model within $450, 2025

    NovaSky Team. Sky-T1: Train your own O1 preview model within $450, 2025. URL https: //novasky-ai.github.io/posts/sky-t1 . Accessed: 2025-01-09

    2025

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    LiveBench: A Challenging, Contamination-Limited LLM Benchmark

    Colin White, Samuel Dooley, Manley Roberts, Arka Pal, Benjamin Feuer, Siddhartha Jain, Ravid Shwartz-Ziv, Neel Jain, Khalid Saifullah, Sreemanti Dey, Shubh-Agrawal, Sandeep Singh Sandha, Siddartha Venkat Naidu, Chinmay Hegde, Yann LeCun, Tom Goldstein, Willie Neiswanger, and M...

    2025

  2. [10]

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R. Bowman. GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12022

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Learn to Explain: Multimodal Reasoning via Thought Chains for Science Question Answering

    Pan Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Tony Xia, Liang Qiu, Kai-Wei Chang, Song-Chun Zhu, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Ashwin Kalyan. Learn to Explain: Multimodal Reasoning via Thought Chains for Science Question Answering. In The 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems ...

    2022

  4. [12]

    AgXQA: A benchmark for advanced Agricultural Extension question answering

    Josué Kpodo, Parisa Kordjamshidi, and A Pouyan Nejadhashemi. AgXQA: A benchmark for advanced Agricultural Extension question answering. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 225:109349, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    AgriBench: A Hierarchical Agriculture Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models

    Yutong Zhou and Masahiro Ryo. AgriBench: A Hierarchical Agriculture Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00465, 2024. 10

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    DeepSeek-AI, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, Xiaokang Zhang, Xingkai Yu, Yu Wu, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Zhuoshu Li, Ziyi Gao, Aixin Liu, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Bei F...

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    QwQ-32B: Embracing the Power of Reinforcement Learning, March 2025

    Qwen Team. QwQ-32B: Embracing the Power of Reinforcement Learning, March 2025. URL https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwq-32b/

    2025

  8. [16]

    LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models, 2023

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timo- thée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Langua...

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bespoke-Stratos: The unreasonable effectiveness of rea- soning distillation, 2025

    Bespoke Labs. Bespoke-Stratos: The unreasonable effectiveness of rea- soning distillation, 2025. URL https://www.bespokelabs.ai/blog/ bespoke-stratos-the-unreasonable-effectiveness-of-reasoning-distillation . Accessed: 2025-01-22

    2025

  10. [18]

    HuatuoGPT-o1: Towards medical complex reasoning with LLMs,

    Junying Chen, Zhenyang Cai, Ke Ji, Xidong Wang, Wanlong Liu, Rongsheng Wang, Jianye Hou, and Benyou Wang. HuatuoGPT-o1: Towards medical complex reasoning with LLMs,

  11. [19]

    Open Thoughts, January 2025

    Open Thoughts Team. Open Thoughts, January 2025. URL https://github.com/ open-thoughts/open-thoughts

    2025

  12. [20]

    Dolphin-R1, January 2025

    Eric Hartford and Cognitive Computations. Dolphin-R1, January 2025. URL https:// huggingface.co/datasets/cognitivecomputations/dolphin-r1

    2025

  13. [21]

    reasoning-v1-20m, January 2025

    Glaive AI. reasoning-v1-20m, January 2025. URL https://huggingface.co/datasets/ glaiveai/reasoning-v1-20m

    2025

  14. [22]

    From crowdsourced data to high-quality benchmarks: Arena-hard and benchbuilder pipeline

    Tianle Li, Wei-Lin Chiang, Evan Frick, Lisa Dunlap, Tianhao Wu, Banghua Zhu, Joseph E Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. From crowdsourced data to high-quality benchmarks: Arena-hard and benchbuilder pipeline. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11939, 2024. 11

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R. Bowman. GPQA: A graduate-level google- proof Q&A benchmark. In First Conference on Language Modeling , 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=T...

    2024

  16. [24]

    LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Con- tamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code, 2024

    Naman Jain, King Han, Alex Gu, Wen-Ding Li, Fanjia Yan, Tianjun Zhang, Sida Wang, Armando Solar-Lezama, Koushik Sen, and Ion Stoica. LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Con- tamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2403.07974

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    MedXpertQA: Benchmarking Expert-Level Medical Reasoning and Understanding, 2025

    Yuxin Zuo, Shang Qu, Yifei Li, Zhangren Chen, Xuekai Zhu, Ermo Hua, Kaiyan Zhang, Ning Ding, and Bowen Zhou. MedXpertQA: Benchmarking Expert-Level Medical Reasoning and Understanding, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18362

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Ho, Christopher Ré, Adam Chilton, Aditya Narayana, Alex Chohlas-Wood, Austin Peters, Brandon Waldon, Daniel N

    Neel Guha, Julian Nyarko, Daniel E. Ho, Christopher Ré, Adam Chilton, Aditya Narayana, Alex Chohlas-Wood, Austin Peters, Brandon Waldon, Daniel N. Rockmore, Diego Zambrano, Dmitry Talisman, Enam Hoque, Faiz Surani, Frank Fagan, Galit Sarfaty, Gregory M. Dickinson, Haggai Porat...

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Large language models and agricultural extension services

    Asaf Tzachor, Medha Devare, Catherine Richards, Pieter Pypers, Aniruddha Ghosh, Jawoo Koo, S Johal, and Brian King. Large language models and agricultural extension services. Nature food, 4(11):941–948, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    agriculture-qa-english-only, 2025

    KisanVaani AI. agriculture-qa-english-only, 2025. URL https://huggingface.co/ datasets/KisanVaani/agriculture-qa-english-only . Accessed: [05/13/2025]

    2025

  21. [29]

    AgMMU: A Comprehensive Agricultural Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark

    Aruna Gauba, Irene Pi, Yunze Man, Ziqi Pang, Vikram S Adve, and Yu-Xiong Wang. AgMMU: A Comprehensive Agricultural Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10568, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Singh, Arti Singh, Chinmay Hegde, Baskar Ganapathysubramanian, Aditya Balu, Adarsh Krishna- murthy, and Soumik Sarkar

    Muhammad Arbab Arshad, Talukder Zaki Jubery, Tirtho Roy, Rim Nassiri, Asheesh K. Singh, Arti Singh, Chinmay Hegde, Baskar Ganapathysubramanian, Aditya Balu, Adarsh Krishna- murthy, and Soumik Sarkar. Leveraging Vision Language Models for Specialized Agricultural Tasks. arXiv, ...

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Chih-Hsuan Yang, Ben Feuer, Zaki Jubery, Zi K. Deng, Andre Nakkab, Md Zahid Hasan, Shivani Chiranjeevi, Kelly Marshall, Nirmal Baishnab, Asheesh K Singh, Arti Singh, Soumik Sarkar, Nirav Merchant, Chinmay Hegde, and Baskar Ganapathysubramanian. BioTrove: A Large Curated Image ...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Label Studio: Data labeling software, 2020-2025

    Maxim Tkachenko, Mikhail Malyuk, Andrey Holmanyuk, and Nikolai Liubimov. Label Studio: Data labeling software, 2020-2025. URL https://github.com/HumanSignal/ label-studio. Open source software available from https://github.com/HumanSignal/label- studio

    2020

  25. [33]

    My field has moderately deep soil

    Alon Jacovi, Andrew Wang, Chris Alberti, Connie Tao, Jon Lipovetz, Kate Olszewska, Lukas Haas, Michelle Liu, Nate Keating, Adam Bloniarz, Carl Saroufim, Corey Fry, Dror Marcus, Doron Kukliansky, Gaurav Singh Tomar, James Swirhun, Jinwei Xing, Lily Wang, Madhu Gurumurthy, Micha...

    2025 arXiv

  26. [44]

    Resistant Varieties: Plant flood-tolerant kale varieties (e.g., ‘Winterbor’ or ‘Red Russian’). 18

  27. [46]

    Additional Tips • Weather Monitoring: Use apps like FarmWise to track rainfall and adjust plans

    Crop Rotation: Rotate with non-brassicas (e.g., legumes) to break pest/disease cycles. Additional Tips • Weather Monitoring: Use apps like FarmWise to track rainfall and adjust plans. • Shade Cloth: Deploy if heat stress follows flooding to protect plants. By implementing thes...

  28. [47]

    Spinach’s shallow roots benefit from consistent moisture

    Optimize Irrigation • Drip Irrigation or Soaker Hoses: Install these systems to deliver water directly to the roots, minimizing evaporation. Spinach’s shallow roots benefit from consistent moisture. Water early morning or late evening. • Watering Schedule: Aim for 1-1.5 inches...

  29. [48]

    Avoid stem contact to prevent rot

    Mulch Application • Organic Mulch: Apply 2-3 inches of straw, compost, or untreated grass clippings around plants. Avoid stem contact to prevent rot. Mulch after watering to retain moisture and cool soil

  30. [49]

    Raised beds can help manage moisture but monitor for drying

    Soil Improvement • Enhance Organic Matter: Incorporate compost or well-rotted manure to improve water retention. Raised beds can help manage moisture but monitor for drying

  31. [50]

    Ensure 4-6 hours of sunlight daily to maintain growth without stress

    Shade Management • Shade Cloth (30-50%): Use a temporary structure to shield plants from midday sun. Ensure 4-6 hours of sunlight daily to maintain growth without stress

  32. [51]

    Drought-Resistant Varieties • Select Cultivars: Choose varieties like ’Bloomsdale Long Standing’ or ’Tyee’ for better drought tolerance and slower bolting

  33. [52]

    Use row covers to extend seasons and reduce evaporation

    Adjust Planting Schedule • Cool-Season Planting: Grow spinach in early spring or late summer/fall to avoid peak heat. Use row covers to extend seasons and reduce evaporation

  34. [53]

    Watch for wilting or bolting, which signal stress

    Monitor and Adapt • Check Soil Moisture: Use a meter or finger test. Watch for wilting or bolting, which signal stress. • Rainwater Harvesting: Collect rainwater in barrels for irrigation during dry spells

  35. [54]

    Use slow-release options if necessary

    Reduce Stressors • Avoid Fertilizers: Especially high-nitrogen types, which can stress plants. Use slow-release options if necessary. 19 • Windbreaks: Plant taller crops or install barriers to reduce wind-driven evaporation

  36. [55]

    Emergency Measures • Container Gardening: In severe drought, grow spinach in self-watering containers placed in shaded areas

  37. [56]

    Har- vest leaves promptly to encourage growth

    Bolting Prevention • Consistent Moisture and Shade: These reduce heat stress, delaying bolting. Har- vest leaves promptly to encourage growth. Regional Consideration: • Tailor practices to your area in Tennessee; mountainous regions may retain moisture longer, while western ar...

  38. [57]

    Enhances biodiversity without competing heavily with straw- berries

    White Clover (Living Mulch) • Benefits: Low-growing, fixes nitrogen, improves soil structure, suppresses weeds, and tolerates shade. Enhances biodiversity without competing heavily with straw- berries. • Considerations: Ensure it’s mowed regularly to prevent excessive moisture...

  39. [58]

    Fast-growing and easy to terminate

    Annual Ryegrass (Between Rows) • Benefits: Deep roots absorb excess water, improve drainage, and prevent erosion. Fast-growing and easy to terminate. • Considerations: Mow periodically to avoid competition. Plant in fall after harvest or early spring between rows. • Timing: Id...

  40. [59]

    • Timing: Plant in late summer/fall post-harvest

    Daikon Radish (Winter Cover Crop) • Benefits: Taproots break up compacted soil, enhance infiltration, and winter-kill, leaving organic channels for drainage. • Timing: Plant in late summer/fall post-harvest. Decomposes by spring, prepping soil for strawberries. Expert Comment:...

  41. [60]

    • Add Organic Matter : Mix compost or aged manure into soil to improve structure (if soil isn’t fully waterlogged)

    Drainage Improvement: • Create Ditches: Dig shallow trenches around kale beds to divert excess water. • Add Organic Matter : Mix compost or aged manure into soil to improve structure (if soil isn’t fully waterlogged). • Sand Application: Sprinkle coarse sand around plants to e...

  42. [61]

    • Pesticides: Use slug bait (iron phosphate) and insecticidal soap for aphids/s- lugs

    Disease & Pest Control: • Fungicides: Apply copper-based fungicides to combat root rot/downy mildew. • Pesticides: Use slug bait (iron phosphate) and insecticidal soap for aphids/s- lugs. • Remove Affected Plants: Prune damaged leaves and uproot severely infected plants

  43. [62]

    • Foliar Spray: Use a liquid fertilizer (e.g., seaweed extract) for quick nutrient uptake

    Soil Nutrition: • Balanced Fertilizer: Apply a granular NPK (10-10-10) with calcium to replen- ish nutrients lost to flooding. • Foliar Spray: Use a liquid fertilizer (e.g., seaweed extract) for quick nutrient uptake

  44. [63]

    During Your Absence

    Weed & Moisture Management: • Mulching: After water recedes, apply straw mulch to suppress weeds and retain soil moisture. During Your Absence

  45. [64]

    Provide clear instructions for emergencies (e.g., reapplying fungi- cides)

    Delegate Monitoring: • Arrange for a trusted person to check fields weekly for waterlogging, pests, and disease. Provide clear instructions for emergencies (e.g., reapplying fungi- cides)

  46. [65]

    Slow-Release Fertilizer: • Apply a slow-release granular fertilizer to sustain nutrient levels

  47. [66]

    Long-Term Strategies (Post-Travel)

    Automate Drainage: • Install temporary French drains or pump systems if flooding persists. Long-Term Strategies (Post-Travel)

  48. [67]

    Raised Beds: Construct permanent raised beds to prevent future flooding

  49. [68]

    Soil Testing: Conduct a pH/nutrient test to guide amendments (target pH 6.0–7.5)

  50. [69]

    Resistant Varieties: Plant flood-tolerant kale varieties (e.g., ‘Winterbor’ or ‘Red Russian’)

  51. [70]

    Cover Crops: Sow clover or rye post-harvest to improve soil health

  52. [71]

    Additional Tips • Weather Monitoring: Use apps like FarmWise to track rainfall and adjust plans

    Crop Rotation: Rotate with non-brassicas (e.g., legumes) to break pest/disease cycles. Additional Tips • Weather Monitoring: Use apps like FarmWise to track rainfall and adjust plans. 21 • Shade Cloth: Deploy if heat stress follows flooding to protect plants. By implementing t...

  53. [72]

    Plant in late summer to establish before frost; it may overwinter in milder areas

    Legumes for Nitrogen Fixation: • Alsike Clover (Trifolium hybridum): Cold-tolerant (Zones 3-8), perennial, fixes nitrogen, and supports pollinators when flowering. Plant in late summer to establish before frost; it may overwinter in milder areas. • Field Peas (Pisum sativum): ...

  54. [73]

    Plant in late summer post-lettuce harvest

    Grasses for Biomass & Erosion Control: • Oats (Avena sativa): Fast-growing, winter-killed by frost, leaving residue that decomposes easily. Plant in late summer post-lettuce harvest. • Barley (Hordeum vulgare): Slightly more cold-tolerant than oats; use for quicker biomass in ...

  55. [74]

    Ensure planting 6–8 weeks before frost for adequate growth

    Brassicas for Biofumigation & Soil Structure: • Forage Radish (Raphanus sativus): Penetrates compacted soil, suppresses pests, and winter-kills. Ensure planting 6–8 weeks before frost for adequate growth. • Mustard Greens (Sinapis alba): Quick-growing; releases compounds that ...

  56. [75]

    Alaska Biodiversity Blend

    Pollinator Support: • Phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia): Cold-tolerant, fast-flowering annual that attracts beneficial insects. Blooms in 6–8 weeks, ideal for late summer planting. Sample Mix: • “Alaska Biodiversity Blend”: Combine oats (50 – Benefits: Oats provide quick groun...

  57. [76]

    lodged plants)

    Immediate Damage Assessment • Crop Evaluation: – Determine the percentage of plants severely damaged (broken stems vs. lodged plants). If >50 – Check for shredded leaves, stem bruising, or root exposure due to erosion. • Soil Inspection: – Look for erosion, compaction, or debr...

  58. [77]

    If replant- ing by early June is feasible, use a maturity group suited to your remaining growing season

    Replanting Decision • Timing: – Arkansas’s soybean planting window typically extends into June. If replant- ing by early June is feasible, use a maturity group suited to your remaining growing season. – If too late, explore short-season varieties or alternative crops (e.g., so...

  59. [78]

    Balance sulfur with gypsum or other amendments if tests indicate excess

    Soil Management • Amendments: – Apply lime if soil pH is <6.0 (high sulfur may acidify soil). Balance sulfur with gypsum or other amendments if tests indicate excess. – Use conventional fertilizers (e.g., 10-10-10) based on soil test results, prioritizing phosphorus and potass...

  60. [79]

    • Chemical Applications: – Apply fungicides (e.g., strobilurins) preventively if hail caused plant wounds

    Pest and Disease Control • Scouting: Monitor for pathogens (e.g., Phytophthora, Septoria) and pests (e.g., bean leaf beetles). • Chemical Applications: – Apply fungicides (e.g., strobilurins) preventively if hail caused plant wounds. – Use herbicides (e.g., glyphosate for burn...

  61. [80]

    Adjust irrigation sched- ules to avoid drought stress, especially in shallow soils

    Irrigation and Drainage • Ensure fields are well-drained to prevent waterlogging. Adjust irrigation sched- ules to avoid drought stress, especially in shallow soils

  62. [81]

    • Nitrogen Boost: If root nodules are damaged, a small N application (20–30 lbs/acre) may aid recovery

    Crop Recovery Support • Foliar Feeding: Apply a balanced foliar fertilizer (micronutrients + low N) to support stressed plants. • Nitrogen Boost: If root nodules are damaged, a small N application (20–30 lbs/acre) may aid recovery

  63. [82]

    Repair irrigation systems, storage units, or fences impacted by the tornado

    Infrastructure Repair • Clear debris to prevent equipment damage. Repair irrigation systems, storage units, or fences impacted by the tornado

  64. [83]

    Contact your provider promptly to discuss replanting compensation or loss coverage

    Documentation and Insurance • Photograph damage and maintain records for insurance claims. Contact your provider promptly to discuss replanting compensation or loss coverage

  65. [84]

    • Diversification: Consider crop rotation or insurance add-ons for extreme weather resilience

    Long-Term Risk Mitigation • Cover Crops: Plant winter cover crops (e.g., rye) post-harvest to reduce future erosion. • Diversification: Consider crop rotation or insurance add-ons for extreme weather resilience. Key Considerations: • Conventional Flexibility: Leverage chemical...

  66. [85]

    This occurs during the milky or dough stages of grain development

    Seeds (Kernels): • Primary Target: These bugs use piercing-sucking mouthparts to feed on developing or mature seeds within the wheat head. This occurs during the milky or dough stages of grain development. • Damage: Feeding punctures can cause shriveled, discolored, or deforme...

  67. [86]

    • Indirect Impact: Heavy infestations can lead to significant economic losses due to compromised seed viability and marketability

    Potential Secondary Effects: • Early-Season Feeding: Nymphs or adults might occasionally feed on softer plant tissues (e.g., stems, leaves) if seeds are unavailable, though this is less common. • Indirect Impact: Heavy infestations can lead to significant economic losses due t...

  68. [87]

    Farmers should monitor wheat heads for bugs and damaged kernels, particularly during grain fill

    Timing: • Activity peaks during wheat’s reproductive stages (heading to maturity), align- ing with seed availability in Wyoming’s growing season. Farmers should monitor wheat heads for bugs and damaged kernels, particularly during grain fill. Management strategies may include ...

  69. [88]

    Examples include Pendimethalin or DCPA (Dacthal), which inhibit weed germination

    Pre-Emergent Herbicides • Selective Herbicides: Apply pre-emergent herbicides labeled for lettuce that target Wild safflower. Examples include Pendimethalin or DCPA (Dacthal), which inhibit weed germination. Consult local agricultural extensions for California-specific recomme...

  70. [89]

    • Stale Seedbed Technique: (a) Prepare the seedbed 2–3 weeks before planting lettuce

    Cultural Practices • Crop Rotation: Rotate with crops like broccoli or onions, which compete better with weeds or have different herbicide options to reduce Wild safflower seed banks. • Stale Seedbed Technique: (a) Prepare the seedbed 2–3 weeks before planting lettuce. (b) Irr...

  71. [90]

    Avoid deep plowing, which may bring buried seeds to the surface

    Mechanical Control • Tillage: Shallow tillage during Wild safflower’s germination phase (often early spring) to disrupt seedlings. Avoid deep plowing, which may bring buried seeds to the surface. • Hand Weeding: Engage your kids in regular, early-season hand-weeding to remove ...

  72. [91]

    Solar heat kills weed seeds and pathogens

    Soil Solarization • Process: During hot summer months (June–August), cover moist soil with clear plastic for 4–6 weeks. Solar heat kills weed seeds and pathogens. • Effectiveness: Highly effective in California’s climate and reduces reliance on chemicals

  73. [92]

    • Edge Management: Mow or herbicide field borders to prevent Wild safflower from encroaching

    Sanitation and Field Hygiene • Equipment Cleanliness: Clean tools and machinery to avoid spreading seeds. • Edge Management: Mow or herbicide field borders to prevent Wild safflower from encroaching. 25

  74. [93]

    Ideal for lettuce rows, as it warms soil and blocks light to weed seeds

    Mulching • Plastic Mulch: Use black or clear plastic mulch to suppress weeds. Ideal for lettuce rows, as it warms soil and blocks light to weed seeds

  75. [94]

    Early detection simplifies control

    Monitoring and Timing • Scout Regularly: Inspect the field weekly for early Wild safflower growth. Early detection simplifies control. • Adjust Planting Dates: Plant lettuce earlier or later to avoid peak Wild saf- flower germination periods

  76. [95]

    Safety and Family Involvement • Herbicide Safety: Choose herbicides with low toxicity and follow re-entry intervals (REIs) to ensure safety for your kids

    Dense Planting • Optimize Spacing: Plant lettuce at recommended dense spacing to shade out weeds without compromising head size. Safety and Family Involvement • Herbicide Safety: Choose herbicides with low toxicity and follow re-entry intervals (REIs) to ensure safety for your...

  77. [96]

    **Factual Accuracy** - Does the answer avoid biological or chemical inaccuracies? - Is pest/crop behavior and soil-chemistry accurately represented?

  78. [97]

    **Contextual Relevance** - Is the advice regionally and seasonally appropriate? - Does it consider the specific crop and geographic location? - Does it avoid over-generalization? 26

  79. [98]

    **Practical Feasibility** - Is the recommendation realistic given likely labor, cost, or scale constraints?

  80. [99]

    **Logical Consistency** - Does the answer contradict itself? - Are the steps or claims internally coherent?

  81. [100]

    Factual Accuracy

    **Completeness** - Does it request needed clarifying info (e.g., soil test, crop stage)? - Are critical details omitted? --- ### DOMAIN INSIGHTS (COMMON ERRORS TO WATCH FOR) You must watch out for these common patterns of poor answers: - **Unverified or inaccurate crop recomme...

  82. [101]

    Amend with lime (to raise pH) or sulfur (to lower pH) as needed

    Soil Health Test Soil: Conduct a soil test to determine pH (ideal: 5.0–6.5) and nutrient levels. Amend with lime (to raise pH) or sulfur (to lower pH) as needed. Enrich Soil: Incorporate organic matter (compost, well-rotted manure) to improve drainage, structure, and fertility...

  83. [103]

    Sanitation: Remove plant debris post-harvest to reduce disease carryover

    Disease Management Resistant Varieties: Choose disease-resistant cultivars (e.g., ‘Kennebec’ for blight, ‘Russet’ for scab). Sanitation: Remove plant debris post-harvest to reduce disease carryover. Watering: Use drip irrigation to keep foliage dry and prevent fungal diseases....

  84. [104]

    IPM Strategies: Use row covers, handpick pests, apply neem oil or spinosad, and encourage beneficial insects (e.g., ladybugs)

    Pest Control Monitoring: Regularly inspect for Colorado potato beetles, wireworms, and aphids. IPM Strategies: Use row covers, handpick pests, apply neem oil or spinosad, and encourage beneficial insects (e.g., ladybugs)

  85. [105]

    Avoid waterlogged soil

    Planting Practices Timing: Plant after the last frost when soil reaches 45–50 °F (typically March–April in Missouri). Avoid waterlogged soil. Spacing: Plant seed potatoes 12–15 inches apart in rows 30–36 inches apart to improve airflow and reduce disease

  86. [106]

    Balanced Fertilization: Use a low-nitrogen, high-phosphorus/potassium fertilizer (e.g., 5-10-10) to prioritize tuber growth over foliage

    Water and Nutrient Management Consistent Moisture: Maintain even soil moisture; mulch with straw to retain water and suppress weeds. Balanced Fertilization: Use a low-nitrogen, high-phosphorus/potassium fertilizer (e.g., 5-10-10) to prioritize tuber growth over foliage

  87. [107]

    Mulch: Apply organic mulch to regulate soil temperature and moisture

    Hilling and Mulching Hill Plants: Mound soil around stems when plants are 6–8 inches tall to protect tubers from sunlight (preventing greening) and improve yield. Mulch: Apply organic mulch to regulate soil temperature and moisture

  88. [108]

    Avoid harvesting in wet conditions

    Harvest and Storage Timely Harvest: Dig potatoes when vines die back (usually 2–3 weeks after flowering). Avoid harvesting in wet conditions. Cure and Store: Cure tubers at 50–60°F with high humidity for 10–14 days, then store in a cool, dark place (38–40°F)

  89. [109]

    Use shade cloth if extreme heat is forecasted

    Climate Adaptation Heat Tolerance: Select short-season varieties (e.g., ‘Yukon Gold’) to avoid peak summer heat. Use shade cloth if extreme heat is forecasted

  90. [110]

    By systematically addressing these factors, you can optimize soil conditions, mitigate pest- s/diseases, and improve overall potato quality and yield in Missouri’s climate

    Record-Keeping Track planting dates, treatments, and weather patterns to refine strategies annually. By systematically addressing these factors, you can optimize soil conditions, mitigate pest- s/diseases, and improve overall potato quality and yield in Missouri’s climate. Sta...

  91. [111]

    Amend with lime (to raise pH) or sulfur (to lower pH) as needed

    Soil Health 29 Test Soil: Conduct a soil test to determine pH (ideal: 5.0–6.5) and nutrient levels. Amend with lime (to raise pH) or sulfur (to lower pH) as needed. Enrich Soil: Incorporate organic matter (compost, well-rotted manure) to improve drainage, structure, and fertil...

  92. [112]

    Rotate with legumes (e.g., beans, peas) to fix nitrogen and break pest/disease cycles

    Crop Rotation Rotate Crops: Avoid planting potatoes in the same plot for 3–4 years. Rotate with legumes (e.g., beans, peas) to fix nitrogen and break pest/disease cycles

  93. [113]

    Sanitation: Remove plant debris post-harvest to reduce disease carryover

    Disease Management Resistant Varieties: Choose disease-resistant cultivars (e.g., ‘Kennebec’ for blight, ‘Russet’ for scab). Sanitation: Remove plant debris post-harvest to reduce disease carryover

  94. [114]

    Avoid waterlogged soil

    Planting Practices Timing: Plant after the last frost when soil reaches 45–50 °F (typically March–April in Missouri). Avoid waterlogged soil. Spacing: Plant seed potatoes 12–15 inches apart in rows 30–36 inches apart to improve airflow and reduce disease. Balanced Fertilizatio...

  95. [115]

    Judge each *verifiable factual statement* in the model’s response against the ground-truth answer

  96. [116]

    ----------------------------------------------- TASK ----------------------------------------------- ### Part A - Label response statements

    List every ground-truth fact that the model failed to mention. ----------------------------------------------- TASK ----------------------------------------------- ### Part A - Label response statements

  97. [117]

    Break the model response into stand-alone factual statements (skip headings, greetings, fluff, or non-verifiable text)

  98. [118]

    sentence

    For **each** statement, output one JSON line with: 33 - "sentence" - the factual statement - "label" - one of "supported", "unsupported", "contradictory" - "rationale" - brief justification (1-2 sentences) - "excerpt" - supporting / contradicting text from the ground-truth, or...

  99. [119]

    Break the ground-truth answer into discrete facts (one per line)

  100. [120]

    Identify which of those facts were **not** covered in Part A

  101. [121]

    missing_fact

    For every uncovered fact, output one JSON line with: - "missing_fact" - the fact text - "note" - always "not covered by the model response" ----------------------------------------------- OUTPUT FORMAT ----------------------------------------------- # Block 1 - labeled respons...

    2024

  102. [2024]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.18925

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.