Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluating Large Language Models on Spatial Tasks: A Multi-Task Benchmarking Study

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2408.14438 v4 pith:4NV3OKTZ submitted 2024-08-26 cs.CL cs.CY

classification cs.CLcs.CY
keywords tasksspatialgpt-4omodelsaccuracydatasetlanguagemoonshot-v1-8k
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The emergence of large language models such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and others highlights the importance of evaluating their diverse capabilities, ranging from natural language understanding to code generation. However, their performance on spatial tasks has not been thoroughly assessed. This study addresses this gap by introducing a new multi-task spatial evaluation dataset designed to systematically explore and compare the performance of several advanced models on spatial tasks. The dataset includes twelve distinct task types, such as spatial understanding and simple route planning, each with verified and accurate answers. We evaluated multiple models, including OpenAI's gpt-3.5-turbo, gpt-4-turbo, gpt-4o, ZhipuAI's glm-4, Anthropic's claude-3-sonnet-20240229, and MoonShot's moonshot-v1-8k, using a two-phase testing approach. First, we conducted zero-shot testing. Then, we categorized the dataset by difficulty and performed prompt-tuning tests. Results show that gpt-4o achieved the highest overall accuracy in the first phase, with an average of 71.3%. Although moonshot-v1-8k slightly underperformed overall, it outperformed gpt-4o in place name recognition tasks. The study also highlights the impact of prompt strategies on model performance in specific tasks. For instance, the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) strategy increased gpt-4o's accuracy in simple route planning from 12.4% to 87.5%, while a one-shot strategy improved moonshot-v1-8k's accuracy in mapping tasks from 10.1% to 76.3%.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. GeoBenchLLM: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Geo-Related Tasks

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A unified geo-benchmark of 421k questions across knowledge, reasoning, and application tasks, showing that thinking mode can help small models close the gap with much larger ones.

Pith tools