Evaluating Large Language Model Capabilities in Assessing Spatial Econometrics Research

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06377v1
• Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 16:30:57 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Large Language Model Capabilities in Assessing Spatial Econometrics Research
• Authors: Giuseppe Arbia, Luca Morandini, Vincenzo Nardelli,
• Abstract summary: We created original and deliberately altered "counterfactual" summaries from 28 published papers.<n>The results indicate that while LLMs can expertly assess the coherence of variable choices, their performance varies significantly when evaluating deeper aspects.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper investigates Large Language Models (LLMs) ability to assess the economic soundness and theoretical consistency of empirical findings in spatial econometrics. We created original and deliberately altered "counterfactual" summaries from 28 published papers (2005-2024), which were evaluated by a diverse set of LLMs. The LLMs provided qualitative assessments and structured binary classifications on variable choice, coefficient plausibility, and publication suitability. The results indicate that while LLMs can expertly assess the coherence of variable choices (with top models like GPT-4o achieving an overall F1 score of 0.87), their performance varies significantly when evaluating deeper aspects such as coefficient plausibility and overall publication suitability. The results further revealed that the choice of LLM, the specific characteristics of the paper and the interaction between these two factors significantly influence the accuracy of the assessment, particularly for nuanced judgments. These findings highlight LLMs' current strengths in assisting with initial, more surface-level checks and their limitations in performing comprehensive, deep economic reasoning, suggesting a potential assistive role in peer review that still necessitates robust human oversight.

Related papers

• BEATS: Bias Evaluation and Assessment Test Suite for Large Language Models [0.0]
  We introduce BEATS, a novel framework for evaluating Bias, Ethics, Fairness, and Factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We present a bias benchmark for LLMs that measure performance across 29 distinct metrics.<n>These metrics span a broad range of characteristics, including demographic, cognitive, and social biases, as well as measures of ethical reasoning, group fairness, and factuality related misinformation risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T16:56:52Z)
• Are Your LLMs Capable of Stable Reasoning? [38.03049704515947]
  We introduce G-Pass@$k$, a novel evaluation metric that continuously assesses model performance across multiple sampling attempts.<n>We employ G-Pass@$k$ in conjunction with state-of-the-art large language models to provide comprehensive insights into their potential capabilities and operational consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T18:12:47Z)
• Evaluating the Consistency of LLM Evaluators [9.53888551630878]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential as general evaluators.<n> consistency as evaluators is still understudied, raising concerns about the reliability of LLM evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-30T17:29:08Z)
• LLaVA-Critic: Learning to Evaluate Multimodal Models [110.06665155812162]
  We introduce LLaVA-Critic, the first open-source large multimodal model (LMM) designed as a generalist evaluator.<n>LLaVA-Critic is trained using a high-quality critic instruction-following dataset that incorporates diverse evaluation criteria and scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:36:33Z)
• From Text to Insight: Leveraging Large Language Models for Performance Evaluation in Management [6.70908766695241]
  This study explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, to enhance objectivity in organizational task performance evaluations. Our results suggest that GPT ratings are comparable to human ratings but exhibit higher consistency and reliability. Our research suggests that while LLMs are capable of extracting meaningful constructs from text-based data, their scope is currently limited to specific forms of performance evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T20:35:10Z)
• LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks [106.09361690937618]
  There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments.<n>We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data.<n>We evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T14:56:13Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Comprehensive Reassessment of Large-Scale Evaluation Outcomes in LLMs: A Multifaceted Statistical Approach [64.42462708687921]
  Evaluations have revealed that factors such as scaling, training types, architectures and other factors profoundly impact the performance of LLMs. Our study embarks on a thorough re-examination of these LLMs, targeting the inadequacies in current evaluation methods. This includes the application of ANOVA, Tukey HSD tests, GAMM, and clustering technique.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T14:47:35Z)
• CriticEval: Evaluating Large Language Model as Critic [110.29766259843453]
  CriticEval is a novel benchmark designed to comprehensively and reliably evaluate critique ability of Large Language Models. To ensure the comprehensiveness, CriticEval evaluates critique ability from four dimensions across nine diverse task scenarios. To ensure the reliability, a large number of critiques are annotated to serve as references.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T12:38:59Z)
• Discovery of the Hidden World with Large Language Models [95.58823685009727]
  This paper presents Causal representatiOn AssistanT (COAT) that introduces large language models (LLMs) to bridge the gap. LLMs are trained on massive observations of the world and have demonstrated great capability in extracting key information from unstructured data. COAT also adopts CDs to find causal relations among the identified variables as well as to provide feedback to LLMs to iteratively refine the proposed factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T12:18:54Z)
• Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark [53.663757126289795]
  This paper introduces GAOKAO-Bench, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples. With human evaluation, we obtain the converted total score of LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT and ERNIE-Bot. We also use LLMs to grade the subjective questions, and find that model scores achieve a moderate level of consistency with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T14:39:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.