Instructor–Worker large language model system for policy recommendation: A case study on air quality analysis of the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Los Angeles wildfires of January 2025 caused more than 250 billion dollars in damage and lasted for nearly an entire month before containment. Following our previous work, the Digital Twin Building, we modify and leverage the multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) framework as well as the cloud-mapping integration to study the air quality during the Los Angeles wildfires. Recent advances in large language models have allowed for out-of-the-box automated large-scale data analysis. We use a multi-agent large language system comprised of an Instructor agent and Worker agents. Upon receiving the users’ instructions, the Instructor agent retrieves the data from the cloud platform and produces instruction prompts to the Worker agents. The Worker agents then analyze the data and provide summaries. The summaries are finally input back into the Instructor agent, which then provides the final data analysis. We test this system’s capability for data-based policy recommendation by assessing our Large Language Model System with Instructor–Worker Architecture’s health recommendations and numerical summarizations based on the air quality data during the Los Angeles wildfires. • A new Instructor–Worker LLM system with integrated response passing. • Automated cloud data retrieval and analysis with LLM system. • Case Study: January 2025 Los Angeles Wildfires Air quality analysis. • Demonstrated application for data-based policy recommendation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".