aiqbench analysis
This paper benchmarks 12 LLMs on Hong Kong fire safety code questions, and it finds a clear gap between multiple-choice performance (80-90% for top proprietary models) and expert-graded open-ended answers (50-70%). The gap matters for anyone considering LLMs for regulatory compliance, since multiple-choice scores can overstate readiness for real-world interpretation. The localized dataset, built with domain experts, is a useful contribution, though results from one jurisdiction and one evaluation setup should be read as a snapshot rather than a general verdict.
Towards a Benchmark for Fire Safety Code Interpretation in the Hong Kong AEC Industry
arXiv:2610.16127v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly explored in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) domain, yet their reliability in regulatory compliance remains uncertain. In this study, we evaluate the performance of LLMs on Hong Kong fire safety codes. In collaboration with domain experts, we create a localized benchmark dataset comprising both multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and open-ended questions (OEQs) to evaluate 12 widely used proprietary and open-source models. Our findings show that top-performing proprietary models achieve 80-90% accuracy on MCQs, whereas open-source models generally lag behind. However, on open-ended evaluation, expert human assessments reveal an accuracy range of only 50-70%, demonstrating that LLMs still have substantial room for improvement in specialized compliance tasks.
Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly explored in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) domain, yet their reliability in regulatory compliance remains uncertain. In this study, we evaluate the performance of LLMs on Hong Kong fire safety codes. In collaboration with domain experts, we create a localized benchmark dataset comprising both multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and open-ended questions (OEQs) to evaluate 12 widely used proprietary and open-source models. Our findings show that top-performing proprietary models achieve 80-90% accuracy on MCQs, whereas open-source models generally lag behind. However, on open-ended evaluation, expert human assessments reveal an accuracy range of only 50-70%, demonstrating that LLMs still have substantial room for improvement in specialized compliance tasks.
Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.16127 [cs.CE]
(or arXiv:2610.16127v1 [cs.CE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.16127 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 212 words
Related coverage

[AINews] Here are 6 Clones of Jev in 2 days
Latent Space · Sep 19, 2026
"About a quarter of them contained bugs": Gemini 4's ML R&D benchmark
LessWrong · Oct 16, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

OSWorld 2.0: Why Long-Horizon Computer-Use Agents Still Fail Four Out of Five Tasks
Snorkel AI Blog · Sep 3, 2026