Towards Automated Situation Awareness: A RAG-Based Framework for Peacebuilding Reports

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10586v1
• Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 16:36:30 GMT
• Title: Towards Automated Situation Awareness: A RAG-Based Framework for Peacebuilding Reports
• Authors: Poli A. Nemkova, Suleyman O. Polat, Rafid I. Jahan, Sagnik Ray Choudhury, Sun-joo Lee, Shouryadipta Sarkar, Mark V. Albert,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces a dynamic Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system that autonomously generates situation awareness reports.<n>Our system constructs query-specific knowledge bases on demand, ensuring timely, relevant, and accurate insights.<n>The system is tested across multiple real-world scenarios, demonstrating its effectiveness in producing coherent, insightful, and actionable reports.
• Score: 2.230742111425553
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Timely and accurate situation awareness is vital for decision-making in humanitarian response, conflict monitoring, and early warning and early action. However, the manual analysis of vast and heterogeneous data sources often results in delays, limiting the effectiveness of interventions. This paper introduces a dynamic Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system that autonomously generates situation awareness reports by integrating real-time data from diverse sources, including news articles, conflict event databases, and economic indicators. Our system constructs query-specific knowledge bases on demand, ensuring timely, relevant, and accurate insights. To ensure the quality of generated reports, we propose a three-level evaluation framework that combines semantic similarity metrics, factual consistency checks, and expert feedback. The first level employs automated NLP metrics to assess coherence and factual accuracy. The second level involves human expert evaluation to verify the relevance and completeness of the reports. The third level utilizes LLM-as-a-Judge, where large language models provide an additional layer of assessment to ensure robustness. The system is tested across multiple real-world scenarios, demonstrating its effectiveness in producing coherent, insightful, and actionable reports. By automating report generation, our approach reduces the burden on human analysts and accelerates decision-making processes. To promote reproducibility and further research, we openly share our code and evaluation tools with the community via GitHub.

Related papers

• VeriMinder: Mitigating Analytical Vulnerabilities in NL2SQL [11.830097026198308]
  Application systems using natural language interfaces to databases (NLIDBs) have democratized data analysis.<n>This has also brought forth an urgent challenge to help users who might use these systems without a background in statistical analysis.<n>We present VeriMinder, https://veriminder.ai, an interactive system for detecting and mitigating such analytical vulnerabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-23T19:48:12Z)
• Multi-Stakeholder Disaster Insights from Social Media Using Large Language Models [1.6777183511743472]
  Social media has emerged as a primary channel for users to promptly share feedback and issues during disasters and emergencies.<n>This paper presents a methodology that leverages the capabilities of LLMs to enhance disaster response and management.<n>Our approach combines classification techniques with generative AI to bridge the gap between raw user feedback and stakeholder-specific reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-30T22:53:52Z)
• AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons [62.374792825813394]
  This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability.<n>The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T05:58:52Z)
• KRAIL: A Knowledge-Driven Framework for Base Human Reliability Analysis Integrating IDHEAS and Large Language Models [2.7378790256389047]
  This paper introduces a novel two-stage framework for knowledge-driven reliability analysis, integrating IDHEAS and LLMs (KRAIL)<n>Inspired by the success of large language models (LLMs) in natural language processing, this paper introduces a novel two-stage framework for knowledge-driven reliability analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T06:21:34Z)
• A Survey on Automatic Credibility Assessment of Textual Credibility Signals in the Era of Large Language Models [6.538395325419292]
  Credibility assessment is fundamentally based on aggregating credibility signals. Credibility signals provide a more granular, more easily explainable and widely utilizable information. A growing body of research on automatic credibility assessment and detection of credibility signals can be characterized as highly fragmented and lacking mutual interconnections.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T17:51:08Z)
• PROXYQA: An Alternative Framework for Evaluating Long-Form Text Generation with Large Language Models [72.57329554067195]
  ProxyQA is an innovative framework dedicated to assessing longtext generation. It comprises in-depth human-curated meta-questions spanning various domains, each accompanied by specific proxy-questions with pre-annotated answers. It assesses the generated content's quality through the evaluator's accuracy in addressing the proxy-questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T18:12:25Z)
• DCR-Consistency: Divide-Conquer-Reasoning for Consistency Evaluation and Improvement of Large Language Models [4.953092503184905]
  This work proposes DCR, an automated framework for evaluating and improving the consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) generated texts. We introduce an automatic metric converter (AMC) that translates the output from DCE into an interpretable numeric score. Our approach also substantially reduces nearly 90% of output inconsistencies, showing promise for effective hallucination mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T08:34:16Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• A Study of Situational Reasoning for Traffic Understanding [63.45021731775964]
  We devise three novel text-based tasks for situational reasoning in the traffic domain. We adopt four knowledge-enhanced methods that have shown generalization capability across language reasoning tasks in prior work. We provide in-depth analyses of model performance on data partitions and examine model predictions categorically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T01:01:12Z)
• Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization [73.89239820192894]
  We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances. We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z)
• Stateful Offline Contextual Policy Evaluation and Learning [88.9134799076718]
  We study off-policy evaluation and learning from sequential data. We formalize the relevant causal structure of problems such as dynamic personalized pricing. We show improved out-of-sample policy performance in this class of relevant problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-19T16:15:56Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.