ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Component-Level Contributions of Retrieval-Augmented LLM Post-Processing in Streaming Anomaly Detection: A Matched-Operating-Point Case Audit.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retrieval-augmented large language model (LLM) post-processing reportedly improves anomaly triage over streaming industrial Internet of Things (IoT) sensor data, yet its LLM and retrieval contributions are rarely separated. We audit a build-verified pipeline (detector, LLM, retrieval, reranking), adding each stage at a matched detector recall of 0.9 under SHA-256-frozen preregistration, with bootstrap intervals and two generator sizes on 40 NAB and SKAB streams (19 industrial). Retrieval, the preregistered primary contrast, is null in seven of eight design configurations, but a preregistered grid of lower recall targets breaks that null on precision at both targets under stream-level resampling and in two of four cells when benchmark families are the unit. Across that grid, the LLM gain (72B F1 +0.0502) shrinks as candidate recall falls (+0.0227 at 0.7, undetectable at 0.5), which is a bound, not a dose-response curve. There, retrieval buys precision at a significant cost of recall. On the 19 industrial streams, the LLM gain is null at one label-free point and exactly zero at the other two, where the generator confirmed every candidate. Faithfulness, by local natural language inference, is low in every arm and not raised by retrieval. Three annotators labeling 133 claims (Fleiss' κ = 0.555) placed the shortfall in the verdicts; none entailed by consensus. The protocol is released as a tested artifact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.