Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 30 references

The NuclearQAv2 benchmark shows large language models handle factual nuclear questions well but struggle with quantitative reasoning and conceptual understanding.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-26 04:49 UTC pith:6Z3B2TJ3

load-bearing objection NuclearQAv2 adds a nuclear-specific benchmark with a hybrid build method, but the abstract leaves category validity and scoring unaddressed so the performance gaps are hard to trust. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.27047 v1 pith:6Z3B2TJ3 submitted 2026-06-25 cs.CL cs.AI

NuclearQAv2: A Structured Benchmark for Evaluating Domain-Science Competence in Large Language Models

Henry Shaowu Yuchi , Michal Kucer , Benjamin H. Sims , Selma Peterson , Emily Taylor This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords NuclearQAv2LLM evaluationnuclear engineeringbenchmarkquantitative reasoningconceptual understandingfactual knowledgedomain-specific evaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents NuclearQAv2 as a benchmark of roughly 1240 question-answer pairs divided into boolean, numeric, and verbal categories focused on nuclear engineering. Construction relies on a hybrid pipeline of expert-authored items, existing datasets, and LLM-assisted generation drawn from technical corpora, with structured prompting used for both creation and scoring. Evaluations of multiple LLMs reveal stronger results on factual recall than on tasks that require calculations or deeper conceptual grasp. The work supplies a scalable method for testing domain-specific competence where both accuracy and reasoning matter.

Core claim

NuclearQAv2 demonstrates that while the models generally perform well on factual questions, quantitative reasoning and conceptual understanding remain considerably more challenging, established through systematic evaluation across the three question categories using the hybrid construction and response-evaluation pipeline.

What carries the argument

The hybrid pipeline combining expert-authored questions, existing datasets, and LLM-assisted generation from domain-specific technical corpora, organized into boolean, numeric, and verbal categories.

Load-bearing premise

The hybrid pipeline produces questions that validly and unbiasedly measure the three intended skill categories without artifacts from the generation process itself.

What would settle it

An experiment showing that the same set of models achieve comparable accuracy across boolean, numeric, and verbal questions on NuclearQAv2, or independent review finding systematic biases traceable to the LLM-assisted generation step.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Substantial performance differences across task types indicate that multi-faceted evaluation frameworks are necessary for technical domains.
  • The benchmark provides a scalable way to assess LLM capabilities in specialized fields beyond general factual recall.
  • Nuclear engineering applications would benefit from targeted improvements in quantitative and conceptual handling before relying on current models for problem solving.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same hybrid construction approach could be applied to create comparable benchmarks in other technical domains to map similar skill gaps.
  • Training data that emphasizes step-by-step calculations and explanations from domain corpora might narrow the observed performance differences.
  • Safety-critical uses of LLMs in nuclear settings would need explicit testing on numeric and verbal items to reduce risk of reasoning errors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces NuclearQAv2, a benchmark of approximately 1,240 question-answer pairs for evaluating LLMs on nuclear engineering knowledge. Questions are divided into three categories (boolean, numeric, verbal) and constructed via a hybrid pipeline combining expert-authored items, existing datasets, and LLM-assisted generation from technical corpora using structured prompting. The authors evaluate multiple LLMs and report that models perform well on factual questions but struggle with quantitative reasoning and conceptual understanding, positioning the benchmark as a scalable tool for domain-specific assessment.

Significance. If the category distinctions hold, NuclearQAv2 would provide a useful multi-faceted evaluation framework for technical domains where factual recall, calculation, and conceptual grasp must be separated. The hybrid construction approach and use of structured prompting for both generation and scoring represent a practical contribution to scalable benchmark creation. However, the absence of reported validation steps for the generated items limits the strength of any conclusions about LLM limitations in nuclear engineering.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / benchmark construction] Abstract and construction description: The central claim that 'quantitative reasoning and conceptual understanding remain considerably more challenging' depends on the three categories cleanly isolating the intended skills. The hybrid pipeline (expert-authored + existing datasets + LLM-assisted generation) is the sole source of the ~1240 items, yet no post-generation validation is described—no expert re-labeling of category membership, no difficulty calibration against human nuclear engineers, and no checks for generation artifacts (e.g., numeric questions solvable by pattern matching). This directly undermines the performance-gap interpretation.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: Performance differences are stated without any supporting data, evaluation metrics, error bars, statistical significance tests, or details on how numeric answers were scored. The soundness assessment cannot be performed from the given information, which is load-bearing for the headline result.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'structured prompting for both automated question generation and response evaluation' but provides no concrete prompt templates, scoring rubrics, or inter-annotator agreement figures for the evaluation step.
  2. No information is given on the distribution of items across the three categories or on how existing datasets were mapped to the boolean/numeric/verbal taxonomy.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive comments. We address each major point below and indicate where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / benchmark construction] Abstract and construction description: The central claim that 'quantitative reasoning and conceptual understanding remain considerably more challenging' depends on the three categories cleanly isolating the intended skills. The hybrid pipeline (expert-authored + existing datasets + LLM-assisted generation) is the sole source of the ~1240 items, yet no post-generation validation is described—no expert re-labeling of category membership, no difficulty calibration against human nuclear engineers, and no checks for generation artifacts (e.g., numeric questions solvable by pattern matching). This directly undermines the performance-gap interpretation.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not describe post-generation validation such as expert re-labeling of categories or difficulty calibration with nuclear engineers. The hybrid pipeline uses expert-authored items as anchors and structured prompting to align LLM-generated questions with the three intended categories, but this does not substitute for independent validation. We will revise the benchmark construction section to explicitly note the absence of such checks, qualify the performance-gap claims accordingly, and outline plans for future expert validation where feasible. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: Performance differences are stated without any supporting data, evaluation metrics, error bars, statistical significance tests, or details on how numeric answers were scored. The soundness assessment cannot be performed from the given information, which is load-bearing for the headline result.

    Authors: The abstract is a concise summary; the full manuscript (Section 4 and associated tables) reports per-category accuracies, the numeric scoring protocol (exact match within tolerance), and model comparisons. No error bars or significance tests are currently included. We will revise the abstract to reference the evaluation metrics and scoring method more explicitly while remaining within length limits. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical benchmark construction with no derivations or self-referential predictions

full rationale

The paper introduces NuclearQAv2 as a new benchmark via a hybrid pipeline of expert questions, existing datasets, and LLM-assisted generation. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or uniqueness theorems appear in the abstract or described content. The central claim (performance gaps across boolean/numeric/verbal categories) is an empirical observation from evaluating LLMs on the constructed items and does not reduce to any quantity defined by the paper itself. No self-citations are load-bearing for the methodology or results. This is a standard non-circular benchmark paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the generated questions faithfully test the stated skills; no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented physical entities are introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5743 in / 1047 out tokens · 28312 ms · 2026-06-26T04:49:20.791464+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance across a wide range of tasks, but ensuring their reliability in highly technical domains remains a significant challenge. In nuclear engineering, problem solving often requires not only factual knowledge but also quantitative reasoning and conceptual understanding. To address the need for systematic evaluation in this domain, we introduce NuclearQAv2, a benchmark for assessing LLMs on nuclear engineering knowledge. The benchmark comprises approximately 1,240 question-answer pairs spanning three categories: boolean, numeric, and verbal. NuclearQAv2 is constructed using a hybrid pipeline that combines expert-authored questions, existing datasets, and LLM-assisted generation from domain-specific technical corpora. By leveraging structured prompting for both automated question generation and response evaluation, the proposed framework enables scalable benchmark construction and evaluation. We evaluate a diverse set of LLMs using NuclearQAv2 and observe substantial performance differences across task types. While the models generally perform well on factual questions, quantitative reasoning and conceptual understanding remain considerably more challenging. These results highlight the importance of multi-faceted evaluation frameworks and establish NuclearQAv2 as a scalable benchmark for assessing LLM capabilities in technical domains.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 9 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    NuclearQA: A human-made benchmark for language models for the nuclear domain.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10920, 2023

    Anurag Acharya, Sai Munikoti, Aaron Hellinger, Sara Smith, Sridevi Wagle, and Sameera Horawalavithana. NuclearQA: A human-made benchmark for language models for the nuclear domain.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10920, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    GPT-4 Technical Report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Flo- rencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. GPT-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Prbench: Large-scale expert rubrics for evaluating high-stakes professional reasoning

    AfraFeyzaAkyürek, AdvaitGosai, ChenBoCalvinZhang, VipulGupta, Jaehwan Jeong, Anisha Gunjal, Tahseen Rabbani, Maria Mazzone, David Randolph, Mohammad Mahmoudi Meymand, et al. PRBench: Large-scale expert rubrics for evaluating high-stakes professional reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.11562, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Synthetic QA corpora generation with roundtrip consistency

    Chris Alberti, Daniel Andor, Emily Pitler, Jacob Devlin, and Michael Collins. Synthetic QA corpora generation with roundtrip consistency. InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6168–6173, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Nougat: Neural Optical Understanding for Academic Documents

    Lukas Blecher, Guillem Cucurull, Thomas Scialom, and Robert Stojnic. Nougat: Neural optical understanding for academic documents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13418, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  7. [7]

    A survey on evaluation of large language models.ACM transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(3):1–45, 2024

    Yupeng Chang, Xu Wang, Jindong Wang, Yuan Wu, Linyi Yang, Kaijie Zhu, Hao Chen, Xiaoyuan Yi, Cunxiang Wang, Yidong Wang, et al. A survey on evaluation of large language models.ACM transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(3):1–45, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    A Survey on Large Language Models for Critical Societal Domains: Finance, Healthcare, and Law

    Zhiyu Zoey Chen, Jing Ma, Xinlu Zhang, Nan Hao, An Yan, Armineh Nour- bakhsh, Xianjun Yang, Julian McAuley, Linda Petzold, and William Yang Wang. A survey on large language models for critical societal domains: Finance, healthcare, and law.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01769, 2024. 16

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    LegalBench: A collaboratively built benchmark for measuring legal reasoning in large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44123–44279, 2023

    Neel Guha, Julian Nyarko, Daniel Ho, Christopher Ré, Adam Chilton, Alex Chohlas-Wood, Austin Peters, Brandon Waldon, Daniel Rockmore, Diego Zam- brano, et al. LegalBench: A collaboratively built benchmark for measuring legal reasoning in large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44123–44279, 2023

    2023

  11. [11]

    Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions.ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 43(2):1–55, 2025

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, et al. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions.ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 43(2):1–55, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    Towards mitigating llm hallucination via self reflection

    Ziwei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Yan Xu, Nayeon Lee, Etsuko Ishii, and Pascale Fung. Towards mitigating llm hallucination via self reflection. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1827–1843, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Select high-quality synthetic QA pairs to augment training data in MRC under the reward guidance of generative language models

    Jing Jin and Houfeng Wang. Select high-quality synthetic QA pairs to augment training data in MRC under the reward guidance of generative language models. InProceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024), pages 14543–14554, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    American Institute of Physics, 1977

    John R Lamarsh and Edward Melkonian.Introduction to Nuclear Engineering. American Institute of Physics, 1977

    1977

  17. [17]

    Holistic Evaluation of Language Models

    Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michi- hiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, 17 et al. Holistic evaluation of language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09110, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    G-Eval: NLG evaluation using GPT-4 with better human alignment

    Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. G-Eval: NLG evaluation using GPT-4 with better human alignment. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2511–2522, 2023

    2023

  19. [19]

    ExpertQA: Expert-curated questions and attributed answers

    Chaitanya Malaviya, Subin Lee, Sihao Chen, Elizabeth Sieber, Mark Yatskar, and Dan Roth. ExpertQA: Expert-curated questions and attributed answers. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3025–3045, 2024

    2024

  20. [20]

    Sources of hallucination by large language models on inference tasks

    Nick McKenna, Tianyi Li, Liang Cheng, Mohammad Hosseini, Mark Johnson, and Mark Steedman. Sources of hallucination by large language models on inference tasks. InFindings of the association for computational linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2758–2774, 2023

    2023

  21. [21]

    Training question answering models from synthetic data

    Raul Puri, Ryan Spring, Mohammad Shoeybi, Mostofa Patwary, and Bryan Catanzaro. Training question answering models from synthetic data. InPro- ceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5811–5826, 2020

    2020

  22. [22]

    SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text

    Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. InProceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383–2392, 2016

    2016

  23. [23]

    A Survey of Hallucination in Large Foundation Models

    Vipula Rawte, Amit Sheth, and Amitava Das. A survey of hallucination in large foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05922, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Ubiquity of LLM hallucinations across critical domains: A survey

    Damanjot Singh and Amritpal Singh. Ubiquity of LLM hallucinations across critical domains: A survey. InPacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 115–132. Springer, 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    Large language models encode clinical knowledge.Nature, 620(7972):172–180, 2023

    Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S Sara Mahdavi, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, et al. Large language models encode clinical knowledge.Nature, 620(7972):172–180, 2023. 18

    2023

  26. [26]

    Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    2023

  27. [27]

    Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Large language models for education: A survey and outlook.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 42(6):51–63, 2026

    Shen Wang, Tianlong Xu, Hang Li, Chaoli Zhang, Joleen Liang, Jiliang Tang, Philip S Yu, and Qingsong Wen. Large language models for education: A survey and outlook.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 42(6):51–63, 2026

    2026

  29. [29]

    BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT

    Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. BERTScore: Evaluating text generation with BERT.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09675, 2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  30. [30]

    True or False

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. Judging LLM- as-a-judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot arena.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46595–46623, 2023. 19 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL 8 NuclearQAv2: Boolean Task Configuration Codes tag : - nuclear t...

    2023