Designing Benchmarks for Knowledge Work

arXiv:2605.23262v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI agents are moving quickly from answering isolated questions toward completing work through tools, software environments, and multi-step workflows. Much of what these systems are now asked to do is knowledge work, where information and expertise are interpreted, produced, and communicated as part of completing work. Benchmarks for this setting are usually described only by their tasks, environments, and metrics, leaving four questions implicit: what part of the work is represented, under what conditions it is tested, what work product the system is expected to leave, and what part of that product the benchmark actually evaluates. We introduce a work-centered benchmark representation with four fields: represented activity, tested setting, required work product, and evaluated result. The representation makes these choices explicit and comparable across benchmark designs. To support activity-level reporting across occupations, we derive an aim-dependent inventory of 18 work activities from O*NET task statements and report evidence on semantic coherence, algorithm sensitivity, external ontology legibility in ESCO, and human interpretability. We apply the representation to GDPval, OfficeQA Pro, and APEX-SWE. The case analyses illustrate how occupational deliverables, grounded answers, and executable state changes capture different parts of work within the same representation.

Abstract:AI agents are moving quickly from answering isolated questions toward completing work through tools, software environments, and multi-step workflows. Much of what these systems are now asked to do is knowledge work, where information and expertise are interpreted, produced, and communicated as part of completing work. Benchmarks for this setting are usually described only by their tasks, environments, and metrics, leaving four questions implicit: what part of the work is represented, under what conditions it is tested, what work product the system is expected to leave, and what part of that product the benchmark actually evaluates. We introduce a work-centered benchmark representation with four fields: represented activity, tested setting, required work product, and evaluated result. The representation makes these choices explicit and comparable across benchmark designs. To support activity-level reporting across occupations, we derive an aim-dependent inventory of 18 work activities from O*NET task statements and report evidence on semantic coherence, algorithm sensitivity, external ontology legibility in ESCO, and human interpretability. We apply the representation to GDPval, OfficeQA Pro, and APEX-SWE. The case analyses illustrate how occupational deliverables, grounded answers, and executable state changes capture different parts of work within the same representation.

18 pages. This replacement updates the title and revises the contribution from a three-step reporting approach to a four-field work-centered benchmark representation (represented activity, tested setting, required work product, and evaluated result). Author affiliations now include Agent Evaluation Science, Inc., New York, NY 10001

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2605.23262 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2605.23262v2 [cs.AI] for this version)

analiza aiqbench

Designing Benchmarks for Knowledge Work

Subiecte conexe