Multi-Stage LLM Prompt Processing for Context-Aware Commands

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional methods for generating commands for large language models (LLMs) often result in incorrect or incomplete outputs due to the complexity of natural language and variability in user inputs, particularly in complex scenarios requiring precise and context-aware responses.

Innovation Solution

A cascading approach using multiple specialized instances of LLMs, each trained and prompted differently, to process complex prompts, where outputs from one instance are fed into subsequent instances to ensure accurate and complete command generation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a single LLM is used to process complex prompts, then the system structure remains simple, but the accuracy and completeness of command generation deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaccuracy of command generationVSAvoidsystem structure
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent divides a complex prompt processing task into multiple sequential stages, each handled by a specialized LLM instance. The first LLM processes the initial prompt to generate intermediate results, which are then passed to a second LLM for further processing and refinement. This segmentation allows each model to focus on specific aspects of the task, improving overall accuracy while maintaining manageable system complexity through modular architecture.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

2Measurement precision

If conventional prompting techniques are used, then the system is easy to operate, but the precision and context-awareness of responses deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprecision of responseVSAvoidsystem operation
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces an intermediary processing layer between the user prompt and the final response. The first LLM acts as an intermediary that transforms the original prompt into refined intermediate representations, which are then processed by the second LLM. This intermediary approach enhances precision by adding contextual understanding and logical reasoning steps, while the automated cascading architecture maintains ease of operation through seamless multi-model coordination.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Reliability

If multiple specialized LLM instances are used in cascade, then the accuracy and completeness of commands improves, but the computational resources and processing time increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecompleteness of command generationVSAvoidprocessing time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent employs preliminary action by having the first LLM perform initial processing and generate intermediate results before passing them to the second LLM. This staged approach allows each model to prepare and refine information progressively, ensuring completeness of command generation. The automated cascading architecture optimizes processing time by eliminating redundant operations and enabling parallel processing where applicable, balancing thoroughness with efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS12423519B1Applying cascading machine learning models to command prompts
Publication Date: 2025.09.23 CITIBANK N A
  • US12423519B1 patent drawing
  • US12423519B1 patent drawing
  • US12423519B1 patent drawing

AI summary

Methods and descriptions are described herein for applying cascading machine learning models to command prompts. In particular, the system may receive a query indicating a computing process to be performed. The system may input a command prompt based on the query into a first instance of an LLM, which may output activities for performing the process. The system may input a first activity into a second instance of the LLM, which may output vulnerabilities associated with the first activity. The system may input a first vulnerability into a third instance of the LLM, which may output indications of available control tools for addressing the first vulnerability. The system may input a first control tool into a fourth instance of the LLM, which may output indications of monitoring tools for monitoring the first control tool. The system may then cause implementation of the first control tool and the first monitoring tool.