Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Research on Model Parallelism and Data Parallelism Optimization Methods in Large Language Model-Based Recommendation Systems

T0 review · 5 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 A hybrid scheme combining tensor, pipeline, and data parallelism claims to lift LLM-recommender training throughput by over 30%.

desk verdict A plausible engineering report undone by internally inconsistent experimental tables and too little disclosure to check the main numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17551 v2 pith:WI6DYSBT submitted 2025-06-21 cs.DC cs.AI

Haowei Yang , Yu Tian , Zhongheng Yang , Zhao Wang , Chengrui Zhou , Dannier Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DCcs.AI
keywords largelanguagemodelsrecommendationsystemshybridparallelismmodeldatagradientcompressionAll-Reducedistributedtraining
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 argues that the two standard ways of scaling LLM-based recommender training—model parallelism and data parallelism—can be combined into a hybrid scheme that beats either alone. Using tensor and pipeline splits for model parameters, data sharding across replicas, hierarchical All-Reduce, gradient compression with residual error feedback, and adaptive load balancing, the authors report over 30% higher training throughput and about 20% better GPU utilization than single-mode parallelism on a real recommendation dataset. They also find that the gains do not degrade ranking quality: HR@10 and NDCG@10 stay close to baseline. The practical stakes are that LLM recommenders, whose parameter sizes make single-machine training impossible, could be trained faster on existing clusters without buying more hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hybrid parallel training scheme itself: model layers are split via tensor and pipeline parallelism while training data is sharded across replicas, tied together by hierarchical All-Reduce, gradient compression with residual error feedback, adaptive load balancing, and overlap of computation with communication. It does the work of shrinking per-iteration communication time from 35–42% down to 28% and keeping GPUs busy, which is why hybrid beats each single-mode strategy.

What would settle it

Run the same Amazon Electronics LLM recommender on exactly one A100 and confirm the baseline of 1,000 samples/s and 5.2 ms/iter; then at four nodes compare hybrid against data parallel at matched total GPU count and check whether the 14.6× speedup and the claimed >30% throughput advantage reproduce.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a simulated eight-node cluster with eight A100 GPUs per node, the paper reports that hybrid parallelism—splitting the model by tensor and pipeline dimensions while also sharding the data—outperforms both pure data parallelism and pure model parallelism. At four nodes, hybrid training reaches 14,600 samples/s (14.6× over the single-GPU baseline), versus 12,800 (12.8×) for data parallelism and 10,500 (10.5×) for model parallelism, with GPU utilization rising to about 90% and communication overhead falling to roughly 28% of iteration time. Recommendation quality is essentially unchanged across all schemes, with HR@10 near 0.319–0.321 and NDCG@10 near 0.193–0.194, so the throughput gains are not bought by sacrificing ranking accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the published benchmark numbers are accurate under the stated configurations, especially that Table 3's speedups come from a correct node-to-GPU mapping rather than from comparing one GPU against eight-GPU nodes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At four nodes, hybrid reaches 14,600 samples/s versus 12,800 for data-parallel and 10,500 for model-parallel, so the same cluster can train an LLM recommender roughly 14% to 39% faster than the best single-mode scheme.
  • Communication drops from 35–42% of iteration time in single-mode schemes to 28%, which means network bandwidth stops being the primary bottleneck at this scale.
  • GPU utilization rises to about 90% from 85% (data) and 80% (model), so fewer GPUs sit idle during hybrid training.
  • HR@10 and NDCG@10 remain essentially unchanged across all schemes, so the parallelization gains do not come at the cost of recommendation quality.
  • Hybrid parallelism's per-layer choice between data and model splitting makes it feasible to fit very large LLMs across many GPUs while keeping most GPUs busy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same hybrid recipe could be tested on other LLM workloads such as ranking or retrieval, where tensor/pipeline splits and gradient compression may yield similar communication savings; nothing in the paper rules this out, but the experiments only cover the Amazon Electronics recommendation dataset.
  • A testable extension is to sweep the compute-to-communication ratio by scaling model width or batch size and check whether hybrid's 28% communication share stays flat; if it grows with node count beyond 4, the scalability claim would need qualification.
  • The paper's robust-training mechanisms—asynchronous updates, heartbeat checks, dynamic repartitioning—are described but not separately ablated, so a direct experiment isolating each mechanism would clarify which one actually carries the robustness outcome.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript investigates model parallelism (tensor, pipeline, mixture-of-experts) and data parallelism (synchronous/asynchronous, gradient compression, hierarchical All-Reduce) for distributed training of LLM-based recommendation models, and proposes a hybrid parallel scheme combining both strategies. Experiments on the Amazon Electronics dataset with an 8-node A100 cluster report that hybrid parallelism increases training throughput by over 30%, improves GPU utilization by roughly 20%, and achieves a 14.6x speedup on 4 nodes compared with a 1-GPU baseline. The paper also reports HR@10 and NDCG@10 to argue that the efficiency gains do not degrade recommendation quality, and discusses deployment trade-offs.

Significance. If the empirical results were internally consistent and reproducible, the paper would provide a useful practitioner-oriented comparison of parallelization strategies for LLM-based recommendation training, including a breakdown of communication overhead and resource utilization. The stated strengths are the use of a real-world dataset, the explicit hardware/software configuration, and the reporting of both throughput and ranking metrics. However, the central quantitative claims rest on tables whose node-to-GPU mapping is contradictory, and no code, reproducible scripts, or statistical detail are provided; as presented, the main conclusions cannot be verified.

major comments (5)
  1. [§IV-C, Table 3] The node-to-GPU mapping in Table 3 is internally inconsistent with the hardware configuration stated in §IV-A and with Table 2. Section IV-A says each node has 8× NVIDIA A100 GPUs, and Table 2 reports Data Parallel with 8 cards at 3,400 samples/s (3.4× over the 1-GPU baseline). Table 3 assigns exactly 3,400/3.4× to '2 nodes' for Data Parallel. If '2 nodes' means 16 GPUs, then adding 8 GPUs yields zero throughput gain, which contradicts the paper's own claim that data parallelism scales nearly linearly. If '2 nodes' means 2 GPUs, it conflicts with Table 2's 8-card setup and the stated per-node hardware. No interpretation of 'node' reconciles Table 2, Table 3, and Section IV-A, so the speedup values and the derived '>30% improvement' and 'strong scalability' claims cannot be validated.
  2. [§IV-C, Table 3] The text states that 'data parallelism scales nearly linearly' from 1,000 to 12,800 samples/s, but the paper's own successive ratios contradict this. From 2 to 3 nodes the Data Parallel throughput grows by a factor of 7,500/3,400 ≈ 2.2, and from 3 to 4 nodes by 12,800/7,500 ≈ 1.7, in both cases far from the expected 1.5 per-node ratio for linear scaling. Model Parallel (2.6 and 1.46) and Hybrid Parallel (2.24 and 1.67) also deviate strongly from linearity. The phrase 'nearly linear' is not supported by the reported measurements; the scalability claim needs either corrected data or a substantially weaker formulation.
  3. [Abstract, §IV-B, Table 2, Table 3] The abstract's headline claim that hybrid parallelism improves throughput by 'over 30% compared to traditional single-mode parallelism' is not consistently supported by the tables. In Table 2, Hybrid Parallel achieves 3,800 samples/s versus 3,400 for Data Parallel, an improvement of about 11.8%, and versus 2,800 for Model Parallel, about 35.7%. In Table 3 at 4 nodes, Hybrid reaches 14,600 versus 12,800 for Data Parallel, about 14.1%, and versus 10,500 for Model Parallel, about 39.0%. Thus the 'over 30%' figure holds only against Model Parallel, not against Data Parallel, and the manuscript does not report an aggregate single-mode baseline that would justify the abstract statement as written.
  4. [§IV-B and Table 2] The experimental setup paragraph says 'We compare four schemes' but then enumerates five items, the last being 'DeepSpeed's auto-scheduled hybrid scheme'. Table 2, however, lists only Baseline, Data Parallel, Model Parallel, and Hybrid Parallel, with no DeepSpeed row. Either the DeepSpeed baseline was run and its results were omitted from the table, or the text lists a baseline that was not actually evaluated. In either case, the comparison is incomplete relative to the stated experimental design, and the claim that the proposed hybrid is preferable to an automatic scheduling baseline is not supported by the reported data.
  5. [§III-B and §IV-A] The manuscript does not report the values of the key hyperparameters for the proposed optimization techniques, including the gradient compression ratio, top-k sparsification fraction, staleness compensation coefficient, and micro-batch size / dynamic batch allocation. These parameters are discussed as central components of the data-parallel and hybrid methods, yet without their disclosure the reported throughput gains cannot be reproduced, and it is impossible to determine whether the improvements come from the methods themselves or from favorable hyperparameter choices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Many references appear unrelated to the claims they support; for example, [6], [8], [9], [16], [17], and [30] concern CT reconstruction, rock mechanics, parking trajectory generation, and emotion recognition, none of which are cited in a way that connects to LLM recommendation or distributed parallel training. The reference list should be thoroughly revised.
  2. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and formatting errors, including 'A．B．' with full-width periods, 'As the number of nodes PP and model size grow' where 'PP' should likely be 'P', and 'as shown in Formula 8' even though equations are numbered 8–12 without preceding equations 1–7. The manuscript would benefit from a careful editorial pass.
  3. [§IV-A] The dataset description is incomplete for reproducibility: the paper does not specify the LLM architecture, embedding sizes, sequence lengths, text fields used, or training hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, optimization algorithm). Adding these details would strengthen the experimental section.
  4. [§IV-B] HR@10 and NDCG@10 values in Table 2 differ by at most 0.002 across schemes, but no variance, number of runs, or significance test is reported, so the conclusion that 'efficiency gains do not degrade recommendation quality' is not statistically supported.
  5. [§IV-C] Figures 4 and 5 are referenced to support the communication-overhead and resource-utilization discussion, but the text does not describe the figure axes, units, or how the percentages were derived, making it hard to assess the claims independently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper's central claims are empirical benchmark comparisons, not fitted predictions or self-citation-dependent derivations.

full rationale

No circular derivation: the paper's central claims are empirical benchmark comparisons, not fitted predictions or self-citation-dependent derivations. The abstract's claims of >30% throughput improvement and ~20% resource utilization improvement are arithmetic consequences of the measured values reported in Table II (e.g., hybrid parallel 3,800 samples/s vs. model parallel 2,800 samples/s is a 35.7% improvement, and 90% GPU utilization vs. 72% baseline is a 25% improvement), and these measurements are defined independently in Section IV-B. No equation in the paper defines a quantity in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-authored references (e.g., [5], [13]) are background citations and are not load-bearing: the experimental results are presented as the paper's own measurements, and no uniqueness theorem or existence result is imported from prior work to force the hybrid scheme. The most serious defect found is an internal consistency problem in Table 3, where Section IV-A states 8 GPUs per node, Table II treats data parallelism as an 8-card configuration, and Table III labels the baseline as 1 GPU while reporting speedups of 12.8x and 14.6x at 4 nodes, which is far below the roughly 32x that near-linear scaling would require. This is a potential measurement or reporting inconsistency, not a circularity in the derivation sense, because the speedup numbers are not constructed to equal the inputs by definition. Accordingly, the paper shows no significant circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new entity, but relies on undisclosed free parameters (compression ratios, top-k, staleness, batch sizes) and standard distributed-training axioms without proof. The central empirical claim depends on these undisclosed settings, making the ledger incomplete.

free parameters (4)
  • Gradient compression ratio = Not disclosed
    1-bit quantization and top-k sparsification thresholds affect the communication/accuracy trade-off; no values are reported.
  • Top-k sparsification fraction = Not disclosed
    The value of k is not reported, and it directly affects the reconstructed gradient quality.
  • Staleness compensation coefficient = Not disclosed
    Formula 12 uses 1+tau_p, but the delays tau_p and any weighting parameters are not specified.
  • Micro-batch size / dynamic batch allocation = Not disclosed
    DeepSpeed dynamic batch allocation is used, but no batch sizes or adaptation rules are given.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Ring All-Reduce reduces communication complexity from O(P) to O(1) per node
    Invoked in Section III-B as motivation for hierarchical All-Reduce; this is a known result for ring all-reduce on fixed-size messages.
  • domain assumption Error feedback with top-k sparsification preserves convergence
    Formula 11 states residual accumulation preserves convergence; the paper cites [6] but does not prove it.
  • domain assumption Chronological split of the Amazon Electronics dataset prevents data leakage
    Section IV-A splits 80/10/10 chronologically; assumes user-item interaction order is a valid temporal split.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Research on Model Parallelism and Data Parallelism Optimization Methods in Large Language Model-Based Recommendation Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WI6DYSBT

@misc{pith2026250617551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Research on Model Parallelism and Data Parallelism Optimization Methods in Large Language Model-Based Recommendation Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WI6DYSBT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17551}
}
read the original abstract

With the rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in recommendation systems, the computational and communication bottlenecks caused by their massive parameter sizes and large data volumes have become increasingly prominent. This paper systematically investigates two classes of optimization methods-model parallelism and data parallelism-for distributed training of LLMs in recommendation scenarios. For model parallelism, we implement both tensor parallelism and pipeline parallelism, and introduce an adaptive load-balancing mechanism to reduce cross-device communication overhead. For data parallelism, we compare synchronous and asynchronous modes, combining gradient compression and sparsification techniques with an efficient aggregation communication framework to significantly improve bandwidth utilization. Experiments conducted on a real-world recommendation dataset in a simulated service environment demonstrate that our proposed hybrid parallelism scheme increases training throughput by over 30% and improves resource utilization by approximately 20% compared to traditional single-mode parallelism, while maintaining strong scalability and robustness. Finally, we discuss trade-offs among different parallel strategies in online deployment and outline future directions involving heterogeneous hardware integration and automated scheduling technologies.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Multimodal RAG Framework for Housing Damage Assessment: Collaborative Optimization of Image Encoding and Policy Vector Retrieval

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A multimodal retrieval-augmented generation framework jointly encodes disaster images and insurance policies, reporting higher damage classification and retrieval accuracy than unimodal baselines on a self-constructed...

  2. Instructional Prompt Optimization for Few-Shot LLM-Based Recommendations on Cold-Start Users

    cs.AI 2025-09 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A manuscript claims instructional prompt engineering improves LLM-based cold-start recommendation, but provides no reproducible evidence.

  3. Meta-Learning for Cold-Start Personalization in Prompt-Tuned LLMs

    cs.LG 2025-07 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A meta-learned prompt-tuning method for cold-start LLM recommendations reports better Hit@10 and nDCG@10 on MovieLens-1M, but with no code, no error bars, and no shown results for Amazon or Recbole.

  4. LLM-Augmented Symptom Analysis for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction: A Clinical NLP

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A small synthetic study reports that Bio_ClinicalBERT embeddings with Random Forest classify CVD risk in about 20 hand-written symptom texts, but the claims of MIMIC-III and CARDIO-NLP evaluation are unsupported.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Research on Multi-Modal Retrieval System of E-Commerce Platform Based on Pre-Training Model

    Zhang, Bingbing, Yi Han, and Xiaofei Han. "Research on Multi-Modal Retrieval System of E-Commerce Platform Based on Pre-Training Model." Artificial Intelligence Technology Research 2.9 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Analysis of collective response reveals that covid-19-related activities start from the end of 2019 in mainland china[J]

    Liu J, Huang T, Xiong H, et al. Analysis of collective response reveals that covid-19-related activities start from the end of 2019 in mainland china[J]. medRxiv, 2020: 2020.10. 14.20202531

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Material Flow Prediction Task Based On TCN-GRU Deep Fusion Model [J]

    Fan P, Liu K, Qi Z. Material Flow Prediction Task Based On TCN-GRU Deep Fusion Model [J]. 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Application of AI in Real-time Credit Risk Detection[J]

    Wang Z, Zhang Q, Cheng Z. Application of AI in Real-time Credit Risk Detection[J]. 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Research on the Design of a Short Video Recommendation System Based on Multimodal Information and Differential Privacy[J]

    Yang H, Fu L, Lu Q, et al. Research on the Design of a Short Video Recommendation System Based on Multimodal Information and Differential Privacy[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08751, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    CTLformer: A Hybrid Denoising Model Combining Convolutional Layers and Self-Attention for Enhanced CT Image Reconstruction[J]

    Zheng Z, Wu S, Ding W. CTLformer: A Hybrid Denoising Model Combining Convolutional Layers and Self-Attention for Enhanced CT Image Reconstruction[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12203, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Optimized path planning for logistics robots using ant colony algorithm under multiple constraints[J]

    Zhao H, Ma Z, Liu L, et al. Optimized path planning for logistics robots using ant colony algorithm under multiple constraints[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05339, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    A novel Tree-augmented Bayesian network for predicting rock weathering degree using incomplete dataset[J]

    Wu C, Huang H, Chen J, et al. A novel Tree-augmented Bayesian network for predicting rock weathering degree using incomplete dataset[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2024, 183: 105933

    work page 2024

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Multidimensional precipitation index prediction based on CNN-LSTM hybrid framework[J]

    Wang Y, Jia P, Shu Z, et al. Multidimensional precipitation index prediction based on CNN-LSTM hybrid framework[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20442, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Generating Multimodal Images with GAN: Integrating Text, Image, and Style [J]

    Tan C, Zhang W, Qi Z, et al. Generating Multimodal Images with GAN: Integrating Text, Image, and Style [J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02167, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Research on E-Commerce Long-Tail Product Recommendation Mechanism Based on Large-Scale Language Models[J]

    Lu Q, Lyu H, Zheng J, et al. Research on E-Commerce Long-Tail Product Recommendation Mechanism Based on Large-Scale Language Models[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06336, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Zhang T, Zhang B, Zhao F, et al. COVID-19 localization and recognition on chest radiographs based on Yolov5 and EfficientNet[C]//2022 7th International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Signal Processing (ICSP). IEEE, 2022: 1827-1830

    2022

  5. [13]

    User Behavior Analysis in Privacy Protection with Large Language Models: A Study on Privacy Preferences with Limited Data [J]

    Yang H, Lu Q, Wang Y, et al. User Behavior Analysis in Privacy Protection with Large Language Models: A Study on Privacy Preferences with Limited Data [J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06305, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Real-Time Prediction for Athletes' Psychological States Using BERT-XGBoost: Enhancing Human-Computer Interaction

    Duan, Chenming, et al. "Real-Time Prediction for Athletes' Psychological States Using BERT-XGBoost: Enhancing Human-Computer Interaction." arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05816 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Enhanced Recommendation Combining Collaborative Filtering and Large Language Models [J]

    Lin X, Cheng Z, Yun L, et al. Enhanced Recommendation Combining Collaborative Filtering and Large Language Models [J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18713, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Xiang, A., Zhang, J., Yang, Q., Wang, L., & Cheng, Y. (2024). Research on splicing image detection algorithms based on natural image statistical characteristics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16296

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Rock mass quality prediction on tunnel faces with incomplete multi-source dataset via tree-augmented naive Bayesian network[J]

    Huang H, Wu C, Zhou M, et al. Rock mass quality prediction on tunnel faces with incomplete multi-source dataset via tree-augmented naive Bayesian network[J]. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 2024, 34(3): 323-337

    2024

  10. [18]

    Ad Placement Optimization Algorithm Combined with Machine Learning in Internet E-Commerce [J]

    Feng H, Gao Y. Ad Placement Optimization Algorithm Combined with Machine Learning in Internet E-Commerce [J]. 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Research on feature fusion and multimodal patent text based on graph attention network[J]

    Song Z, Liu Z, Li H. Research on feature fusion and multimodal patent text based on graph attention network[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20188, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Enhancing Code LLMs with Reinforcement Learning in Code Generation[J]

    Wang J, Zhang Z, He Y, et al. Enhancing Code LLMs with Reinforcement Learning in Code Generation[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20367, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Construction and Analysis of Collaborative Educational Networks based on Student Concept Maps[J]

    Freedman H, Young N, Schaefer D, et al. Construction and Analysis of Collaborative Educational Networks based on Student Concept Maps[J]. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2024, 8(CSCW1): 1-22

    2024

  14. [22]

    Psychological health knowledge-enhanced LLM-based social network crisis intervention text transfer recognition method[J]

    Wu S, Huang X, Lu D. Psychological health knowledge-enhanced LLM-based social network crisis intervention text transfer recognition method[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07983, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Avocado Price Prediction Using a Hybrid Deep Learning Model: TCN-MLP-Attention Architecture [J]

    Zhang L, Liang R. Avocado Price Prediction Using a Hybrid Deep Learning Model: TCN-MLP-Attention Architecture [J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09907, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Tan C, Li X, Wang X, et al. Real-time Video Target Tracking Algorithm Utilizing Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN)[C]//2024 4th International Conference on Electronic Information Engineering and Computer (EIECT). IEEE, 2024: 847-851

    2024

  17. [25]

    CCi-YOLOv8n: Enhanced Fire Detection with CARAFE and Context-Guided Modules[J]

    Lv K. CCi-YOLOv8n: Enhanced Fire Detection with CARAFE and Context-Guided Modules[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11011, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Research on Personalized Financial Product Recommendation by Integrating Large Language Models and Graph Neural Networks[J]

    Zhao Y, Peng Y, Li D, et al. Research on Personalized Financial Product Recommendation by Integrating Large Language Models and Graph Neural Networks[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05873, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Financial analysis: Intelligent financial data analysis system based on llm-rag

    Wang, Jingru, Wen Ding, and Xiaotong Zhu. "Financial analysis: Intelligent financial data analysis system based on llm-rag." arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06279 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Personalized Risks and Regulatory Strategies of Large Language Models in Digital Advertising[J]

    Feng H, Dai Y, Gao Y. Personalized Risks and Regulatory Strategies of Large Language Models in Digital Advertising[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04665, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Automated Parking Trajectory Generation Using Deep Reinforcement Learning[J]

    Zhang Z, Luo Y, Chen Y, et al. Automated Parking Trajectory Generation Using Deep Reinforcement Learning[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21071, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    (2024, August)

    Xiang, A., Qi, Z., Wang, H., Yang, Q., & Ma, D. (2024, August). A multimodal fusion network for student emotion recognition based on transformer and tensor product. In 2024 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Sensors, Electronics and Computer Engineering (ICSECE) (pp. 1-4). IEEE

    2024

  23. [31]

    II-NVM: Enhancing Map Accuracy and Consistency with Normal Vector-Assisted Mapping[J]

    Zhao C, Li Y, Jian Y, et al. II-NVM: Enhancing Map Accuracy and Consistency with Normal Vector-Assisted Mapping[J]. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

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