analiza aiqbench
This benchmark introduces SCICONVBENCH to evaluate how well LLMs handle multi-turn dialogue for refining ill-posed scientific requests in computational domains like fluid mechanics and PDEs. The study reveals a critical gap where even frontier models struggle with disambiguation, often making silent assumptions rather than clarifying missing information with users. This work shifts the focus from static problem solving to the conversational reasoning necessary for reliable scientific AI assistants.
SCICONVBENCH: Benchmarking LLMs on Multi-Turn Clarification for Task Formulation in Computational Science
arXiv:2605.18630v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as scientific AI as- sistants, and a growing body of benchmarks evaluates their capabilities across knowledge retrieval, reasoning, code generation, and tool use. These evaluations, however, typically assume the scientific problem is already well-posed, whereas practical scientific assistance often begins with an ill-posed user request that must be refined through dialogue before any computation, analysis, or experiment can be carried out reliably. We introduce SCICONVBENCH, a benchmark for multi- turn clarification in scientific task formulation across four computational science problem domains: fluid mechanics, solid mechanics, materials science, and par- tial differential equations (PDEs). SCICONVBENCH targets two complementary capabilities: eliciting missing information (disambiguation) and detecting and correcting erroneous requests containing internally contradictory information (in- consistency resolution). Our benchmark pairs a structured task ontology with a rubric-based evaluation framework, enabling systematic measurement of LLM per- formance across three dimensions: clarification behavior, conversational grounding, and final-specification fidelity. Current frontier models perform relatively well on inconsistency resolution, but even the best model resolves only 52.7% of the disambiguation cases in fluid mechanics. We further find that frontier LLMs fre- quently make silent assumptions and perform implicit specification repairs that are not grounded in the conversation with users. SCICONVBENCH establishes a foundation for evaluating the upstream conversational reasoning that a reliable computational science assistant requires. The code and data can be found at https://github.com/csml-rpi/SciConvBench.
Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as scientific AI as- sistants, and a growing body of benchmarks evaluates their capabilities across knowledge retrieval, reasoning, code generation, and tool use. These evaluations, however, typically assume the scientific problem is already well-posed, whereas practical scientific assistance often begins with an ill-posed user request that must be refined through dialogue before any computation, analysis, or experiment can be carried out reliably. We introduce SCICONVBENCH, a benchmark for multi- turn clarification in scientific task formulation across four computational science problem domains: fluid mechanics, solid mechanics, materials science, and par- tial differential equations (PDEs). SCICONVBENCH targets two complementary capabilities: eliciting missing information (disambiguation) and detecting and correcting erroneous requests containing internally contradictory information (in- consistency resolution). Our benchmark pairs a structured task ontology with a rubric-based evaluation framework, enabling systematic measurement of LLM per- formance across three dimensions: clarification behavior, conversational grounding, and final-specification fidelity. Current frontier models perform relatively well on inconsistency resolution, but even the best model resolves only 52.7% of the disambiguation cases in fluid mechanics. We further find that frontier LLMs fre- quently make silent assumptions and perform implicit specification repairs that are not grounded in the conversation with users. SCICONVBENCH establishes a foundation for evaluating the upstream conversational reasoning that a reliable computational science assistant requires. The code and data can be found at this https URL.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computational Physics (physics.comp-ph)
arXiv:2605.18630 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2605.18630v2 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.18630 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 323 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Fewer Clarifications, Better Code: Benchmarking Cross-Session Personalized Ambiguity Adaptation in Coding Assistants
arXiv · 31 iul. 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 10 sept. 2026

[AINews] Behind Latent Space: Kill My SaaS, Jev & AI in 2026 | AIEi Shanghai
Latent Space · 4 nov. 2026
ClarifyCodeBench: Evaluating LLMs on Clarifying Ambiguous Requirements for Code Generation
arXiv · 6 oct. 2026