analiza aiqbench
This study benchmarks LLM agents on the UnivEARTH coding task, revealing that current models struggle significantly with Google Earth Engine API integration, achieving only marginal accuracy above random chance even with advanced frameworks like Reflexion. The findings highlight critical gaps in tool-use reliability and code execution stability before AI can effectively automate planetary data analysis workflows.
Towards LLM Agents for Earth Observation
arXiv:2504.12110v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Earth Observation (EO) provides critical planetary data for environmental monitoring, disaster management, climate science, and other scientific domains. In this work we ask: Are AI systems ready for reliable Earth Observation? To answer this, we introduce UnivEARTH, a coding benchmark of 408 yes/no questions from NASA Earth Observatory articles across 7 various topics and over 15 satellite instruments and sources. Using Google Earth Engine API as a tool in a zero-shot setup, LLM agents achieve an accuracy of 40.0% where the code fails to run over 44% of the time. To better understand LLM agent behavior, we also analyze the impact of using the JavaScript API versus Python and the effect of providing documentation. Furthermore, we find that using a Reflexion framework significantly reduces errors: Claude-4.5-Sonnet, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and GPT-5 accuracies rise to around 60%. However, these results remain only marginally above random chance. Taken together, our findings identify significant challenges to be solved before AI agents can automate earth observation, and suggest paths forward.
Abstract:Earth Observation (EO) provides critical planetary data for environmental monitoring, disaster management, climate science, and other scientific domains. In this work we ask: Are AI systems ready for reliable Earth Observation? To answer this, we introduce UnivEARTH, a coding benchmark of 408 yes/no questions from NASA Earth Observatory articles across 7 various topics and over 15 satellite instruments and sources. Using Google Earth Engine API as a tool in a zero-shot setup, LLM agents achieve an accuracy of 40.0% where the code fails to run over 44% of the time. To better understand LLM agent behavior, we also analyze the impact of using the JavaScript API versus Python and the effect of providing documentation. Furthermore, we find that using a Reflexion framework significantly reduces errors: Claude-4.5-Sonnet, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and GPT-5 accuracies rise to around 60%. However, these results remain only marginally above random chance. Taken together, our findings identify significant challenges to be solved before AI agents can automate earth observation, and suggest paths forward.
Accepted at ACL 2026 Findings and ICML 2025 Workshop TerraBytes. Project page: this https URL
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2504.12110 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2504.12110v3 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.12110 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 · 271 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · 17 oct. 2026

Orienting Towards Oversight: Which AIs Should Want to Defect?
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026

Coming of a New Sun
LessWrong · 3 aug. 2026
A closer look at what ozone and nuclear arms control tell us about regulating AI
LessWrong · 6 oct. 2026