DepthCharge: A Domain-Agnostic Framework for Measuring Depth-Dependent Knowledge in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23514v1
• Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2026 20:49:11 GMT
• Title: DepthCharge: A Domain-Agnostic Framework for Measuring Depth-Dependent Knowledge in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models appear competent when answering general questions but often fail when pushed into domain-specific details.<n>We present DepthCharge, a domain-agnostic framework that measures knowledge depth through three innovations.<n> adaptive probing that generates follow-up questions based on concepts the model actually mentions, on-demand fact verification from authoritative sources, and survival statistics with constant sample sizes at every depth level.
• Score: 51.56484100374058
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models appear competent when answering general questions but often fail when pushed into domain-specific details. No existing methodology provides an out-of-the-box solution for measuring how deeply LLMs can sustain accurate responses under adaptive follow-up questioning across arbitrary domains. We present DepthCharge, a domain-agnostic framework that measures knowledge depth through three innovations: adaptive probing that generates follow-up questions based on concepts the model actually mentions, on-demand fact verification from authoritative sources, and survival statistics with constant sample sizes at every depth level. The framework can be deployed on any knowledge domain with publicly verifiable facts, without requiring pre-constructed test sets or domain-specific expertise. DepthCharge results are relative to the evaluator model used for answer checking, making the framework a tool for comparative evaluation rather than absolute accuracy certification. Empirical validation across four diverse domains (Medicine, Constitutional Law, Ancient Rome, and Quantum Computing) with five frontier models demonstrates that DepthCharge reveals depth-dependent performance variation hidden by standard benchmarks. Expected Valid Depth (EVD) ranges from 3.45 to 7.55 across model-domain combinations, and model rankings vary substantially by domain, with no single model dominating all areas. Cost-performance analysis further reveals that expensive models do not always achieve deeper knowledge, suggesting that domain-specific evaluation is more informative than aggregate benchmarks for model selection in professional applications.

Related papers

• SpatialBench: Is Your Spatial Foundation Model an All-Round Player? [92.031716744172]
  SpatialBench is a cross-paradigm, domain-diverse benchmark for spatial foundation models with deterministic sampling.<n>It comprehensively evaluates 41 models across 6 paradigms on 5 task suites under 4 different input density settings.<n>Our evaluations in challenging embodied and egocentric tasks demonstrate that strict domain alignment and high data quality are far more critical to performance than simple dataset scaling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T17:59:20Z)
• ReVSI: Rebuilding Visual Spatial Intelligence Evaluation for Accurate Assessment of VLM 3D Reasoning [59.558706734431276]
  Current evaluations of spatial intelligence can be systematically invalid under modern vision-language model (VLM) settings.<n>We introduce ReVSI, a benchmark and protocol that ensures each QA pair is answerable and correct under the model's actual inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-27T10:45:51Z)
• Automated Benchmark Generation from Domain Guidelines Informed by Bloom's Taxonomy [28.293009223912602]
  Open-ended question answering (QA) evaluates a model's ability to perform contextualized reasoning beyond factual recall.<n>This challenge is especially acute in practice-based domains, where knowledge is procedural and grounded in professional judgment.<n>We introduce a framework for automated benchmark generation from expert-authored guidelines informed by Bloom's taxonomy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T05:01:11Z)
• AA-Omniscience: Evaluating Cross-Domain Knowledge Reliability in Large Language Models [0.0]
  AA- Omniscience is a benchmark designed to measure factual recall and knowledge calibration across 6,000 questions.<n>The evaluation measures a model's Omniscience Index, a bounded metric (-100 to 100) measuring factual recall.<n>Results reveal persistent factuality and calibration weaknesses across frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-17T06:27:16Z)
• Demystifying Network Foundation Models [14.775836458250799]
  This work presents a systematic investigation into the latent knowledge encoded within Network Foundation Models (NFMs)<n>We evaluate four state-of-the-art NFMs, revealing that they all exhibit significant anisotropy, inconsistent feature sensitivity patterns.<n>Our work identifies numerous limitations across all models and demonstrates that addressing them can significantly improve model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T03:53:46Z)
• General-Reasoner: Advancing LLM Reasoning Across All Domains [64.70599911897595]
  Reinforcement learning (RL) has recently demonstrated strong potential in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>We propose General-Reasoner, a novel training paradigm designed to enhance LLM reasoning capabilities across diverse domains.<n>We train a series of models and evaluate them on a wide range of datasets covering wide domains like physics, chemistry, finance, electronics etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T17:41:33Z)
• Crossing the Reward Bridge: Expanding RL with Verifiable Rewards Across Diverse Domains [92.36624674516553]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has demonstrated significant success in enhancing mathematical reasoning and coding performance of large language models (LLMs)<n>We investigate the effectiveness and scalability of RLVR across diverse real-world domains including medicine, chemistry, psychology, economics, and education.<n>We utilize a generative scoring technique that yields soft, model-based reward signals to overcome limitations posed by binary verifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T08:22:49Z)
• GM-DF: Generalized Multi-Scenario Deepfake Detection [49.072106087564144]
  Existing face forgery detection usually follows the paradigm of training models in a single domain. In this paper, we elaborately investigate the generalization capacity of deepfake detection models when jointly trained on multiple face forgery detection datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T17:42:08Z)
• Evaluating the Efficacy of Foundational Models: Advancing Benchmarking Practices to Enhance Fine-Tuning Decision-Making [1.3812010983144802]
  This study evaluates large language models (LLMs) across diverse domains, including cybersecurity, medicine, and finance. The results indicate that model size and types of prompts used for inference significantly influenced response length and quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T20:52:31Z)
• Domain-Expanded ASTE: Rethinking Generalization in Aspect Sentiment Triplet Extraction [67.54420015049732]
  Aspect Sentiment Triplet Extraction (ASTE) is a challenging task in sentiment analysis, aiming to provide fine-grained insights into human sentiments. Existing benchmarks are limited to two domains and do not evaluate model performance on unseen domains. We introduce a domain-expanded benchmark by annotating samples from diverse domains, enabling evaluation of models in both in-domain and out-of-domain settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T18:01:49Z)
• Polynomial Networks in Deep Classifiers [55.90321402256631]
  We cast the study of deep neural networks under a unifying framework. Our framework provides insights on the inductive biases of each model. The efficacy of the proposed models is evaluated on standard image and audio classification benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-16T06:41:20Z)

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.