GIScholarBench: Benchmarking LLM Overconfidence in GIS Research

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08036v1
• Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2026 07:56:40 GMT
• Title: GIScholarBench: Benchmarking LLM Overconfidence in GIS Research
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic research, but scholarly tasks require high factual precision.<n>Here, we introduce GIScholarBench, a benchmark built from 10,865 papers published in 25 core GIScience journals between 2020 and 2025.<n>We evaluate Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 3, and ChatGPT 5.3 through their native web interfaces under real-world user-facing conditions.
• Score: 14.111940657521489
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic research workflows, but scholarly tasks require high factual precision and therefore expose a key weakness: overconfidence. Here, overconfidence is defined behaviorally as the tendency to produce confident, assertive, and well-formatted outputs even when the underlying knowledge is incomplete or unverifiable, rather than as a calibration gap between stated confidence and accuracy. To examine this issue, we introduce GIScholarBench, a benchmark built from 10,865 papers published in 25 core GIScience journals between 2020 and 2025. The benchmark covers three tasks with increasing cognitive complexity: metadata retrieval, literature linking, and research direction generation. We evaluate Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 3, and ChatGPT 5.3 through their native web interfaces under real-world user-facing conditions. Results show consistent overconfidence across all tasks. In metadata retrieval, ChatGPT 5.3 achieves the highest accuracy, but all models still generate definitive titles and DOIs when predictions are wrong. In literature linking, Claude Sonnet 4.5 recovers the most references, but all models show a clear gap between top-ranked retrieval and longer citation lists, suggesting that references are extended beyond reliable retrieval capacity. In research direction generation, AI-generated directions show lower topic coverage, higher novel miss rates, and lower semantic diversity than real future-citing papers. These findings suggest that LLM overconfidence is task-invariant but takes different forms: factual overgeneration in retrieval, unreliable citation expansion in literature linking, and overconfidence in output completeness during research ideation.

Related papers

• CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era [51.63024682584688]
  Large language models (LLMs) introduce a new risk: fabricated references that appear plausible but correspond to no real publications.<n>We present the first comprehensive benchmark and detection framework for hallucinated citations in scientific writing.<n>Our framework significantly outperforms prior methods in both accuracy and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T19:17:39Z)
• RPC-Bench: A Fine-grained Benchmark for Research Paper Comprehension [65.81339691942757]
  RPC-Bench is a large-scale question-answering benchmark built from review-rebuttal exchanges of high-quality computer science papers.<n>We design a fine-grained taxonomy aligned with the scientific research flow to assess models' ability to understand and answer why, what, and how questions in scholarly contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T11:37:00Z)
• ELAIPBench: A Benchmark for Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence Paper Understanding [49.67493845115009]
  ELAIPBench is a benchmark curated by domain experts to evaluate large language models' comprehension of AI research papers.<n>It spans three difficulty levels and emphasizes non-trivial reasoning rather than shallow retrieval.<n>Experiments show that the best-performing LLM achieves an accuracy of only 39.95%, far below human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-12T11:11:20Z)
• Let's Use ChatGPT To Write Our Paper! Benchmarking LLMs To Write the Introduction of a Research Paper [64.50822834679101]
  SciIG is a task that evaluates LLMs' ability to produce coherent introductions from titles, abstracts, and related works.<n>We assess five state-of-the-art models, including open-source (DeepSeek-v3, Gemma-3-12B, LLaMA 4-Maverick, MistralAI Small 3.1) and closed-source GPT-4o systems.<n>Results demonstrate LLaMA-4 Maverick's superior performance on most metrics, particularly in semantic similarity and faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-19T21:11:11Z)
• Factuality or Fiction? Benchmarking Modern LLMs on Ambiguous QA with Citations [0.0]
  We evaluate the factual accuracy and citation performance of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on the task of Question Answering (QA)<n>Our results show that larger, recent models consistently predict at least one correct answer in ambiguous contexts but fail to handle cases with multiple valid answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T23:55:19Z)
• One Thousand and One Pairs: A "novel" challenge for long-context language models [56.60667988954638]
  NoCha is a dataset of 1,001 pairs of true and false claims about 67 fictional books. Our annotators confirm that the largest share of pairs in NoCha require global reasoning over the entire book to verify. On average, models perform much better on pairs that require only sentence-level retrieval vs. global reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T02:03:57Z)
• Attribution in Scientific Literature: New Benchmark and Methods [41.64918533152914]
  Large language models (LLMs) present a promising yet challenging frontier for automated source citation in scientific communication.<n>We introduce REASONS, a novel dataset with sentence-level annotations across 12 scientific domains from arXiv.<n>We conduct extensive experiments with models such as GPT-O1, GPT-4O, GPT-3.5, DeepSeek, and other smaller models like Perplexity AI (7B)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T16:38:51Z)
• Empirical evaluation of Uncertainty Quantification in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models for Science [0.0]
  This study investigates how uncertainty scores vary when scientific knowledge is incorporated as pretraining and retrieval data. We observe that an existing RALM finetuned with scientific knowledge as the retrieval data tends to be more confident in generating predictions. We also found that RALMs are overconfident in their predictions, making inaccurate predictions more confidently than accurate ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T20:42:11Z)
• Prompting GPT-3 To Be Reliable [117.23966502293796]
  This work decomposes reliability into four facets: generalizability, fairness, calibration, and factuality. We find that GPT-3 outperforms smaller-scale supervised models by large margins on all these facets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T14:52:39Z)

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.