BEAMS: Benchmarking and Evaluating AI for Modeling and Simulation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28994v1
• Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 18:51:00 GMT
• Title: BEAMS: Benchmarking and Evaluating AI for Modeling and Simulation
• Abstract summary: The BEAMS Initiative aims to guide the development of AI tools for modeling and simulation toward forms that are responsible and ethical.<n>The initiative uses open digital and organizational infrastructure to collaboratively evaluate AI tools for modeling and simulation.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI tools to support real world decision making must be able to build simulation models that inform their recommendations and render them interpretable. Tools that can automate aspects of modeling practice must complement human expertise, not replace it. The BEAMS Initiative aims to guide the development of AI tools for modeling and simulation toward forms that are responsible and ethical by establishing benchmarks for human centered modeling and simulation practices. The initiative uses open digital and organizational infrastructure to collaboratively evaluate AI tools for modeling and simulation. The open source sd ai project hosted by the initiative establishes transparency and enables contributions to be shared broadly. A steering group focuses on prioritizing potential benchmarks, while a technical group focuses on implementing the benchmarks in the form of automated tests. Tests for several distinct categories of evaluation have been implemented and applied to AI tools that support qualitative model building, quantitative model building, and model discussion. These include tests for causal translation, model iteration, causal reasoning, conformance, model behavior explanation, suggested model building steps, and suggested model fixes. When engines from the sd ai project are coupled with different LLMs, their performance on these evaluations reveals variability across different AI tools. The evaluations implemented by the initiative demonstrate that AI enabled modeling tools perform better at discussion and basic qualitative tasks than with causal reasoning and quantitative error fixing. No single LLM dominates across engine types, highlighting the importance of specific tasks and tradeoffs between speed and accuracy. Ongoing efforts of the initiative aim to incorporate benchmarks that address concerns about bias by considering alternative perspectives and human centered use cases.

Related papers

• Q-REAL: Towards Realism and Plausibility Evaluation for AI-Generated Content [71.46991494014382]
  We introduce Q-Real, a novel dataset for fine-grained evaluation of realism and plausibility in AI-generated images.<n>Q-Real consists of 3,088 images generated by popular text-to-image models.<n>We construct Q-Real Bench to evaluate them on two tasks: judgment and grounding with reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-21T02:43:17Z)
• Modèles de Substitution pour les Modèles à base d'Agents : Enjeux, Méthodes et Applications [0.0]
  Agent-based models (ABM) are widely used to study emergent phenomena arising from local interactions.<n>The complexity of ABM limits their feasibility for real-time decision-making and large-scale scenario analysis.<n>To address these limitations, surrogate models offer an efficient alternative by learning approximations from sparse simulation data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T08:55:33Z)
• ToolACE-DEV: Self-Improving Tool Learning via Decomposition and EVolution [77.86222359025011]
  We propose ToolACE-DEV, a self-improving framework for tool learning.<n>First, we decompose the tool-learning objective into sub-tasks that enhance basic tool-making and tool-using abilities.<n>We then introduce a self-evolving paradigm that allows lightweight models to self-improve, reducing reliance on advanced LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T12:48:30Z)
• How Well Can AI Build SD Models? [0.0]
  We introduce two metrics for evaluation of AI-generated causal maps: technical correctness (causal translation) and adherence to instructions (conformance)<n>We tested 11 different LLMs on their ability to do causal translation as well as conform to user instruction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T14:48:47Z)
• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• DIME: Fine-grained Interpretations of Multimodal Models via Disentangled Local Explanations [119.1953397679783]
  We focus on advancing the state-of-the-art in interpreting multimodal models. Our proposed approach, DIME, enables accurate and fine-grained analysis of multimodal models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-03T20:52:47Z)
• A Model-Driven Engineering Approach to Machine Learning and Software Modeling [0.5156484100374059]
  Models are used in both the Software Engineering (SE) and the Artificial Intelligence (AI) communities. The main focus is on the Internet of Things (IoT) and smart Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) use cases, where both ML and model-driven SE play a key role.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-06T15:50:50Z)
• Quantitatively Assessing the Benefits of Model-driven Development in Agent-based Modeling and Simulation [80.49040344355431]
  This paper compares the use of MDD and ABMS platforms in terms of effort and developer mistakes. The obtained results show that MDD4ABMS requires less effort to develop simulations with similar (sometimes better) design quality than NetLogo.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T23:29:04Z)

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.