Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

SciAssess: Benchmarking LLM Proficiency in Scientific Literature Analysis

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 2403.01976 v5 pith:XBJ4ELSO submitted 2024-03-04 cs.CL

SciAssess: Benchmarking LLM Proficiency in Scientific Literature Analysis

classification cs.CL
keywords sciassessanalysisllmsscientificliteratureevaluationmemorizationproficiency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recent breakthroughs in Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized scientific literature analysis. However, existing benchmarks fail to adequately evaluate the proficiency of LLMs in this domain, particularly in scenarios requiring higher-level abilities beyond mere memorization and the handling of multimodal data. In response to this gap, we introduce SciAssess, a benchmark specifically designed for the comprehensive evaluation of LLMs in scientific literature analysis. It aims to thoroughly assess the efficacy of LLMs by evaluating their capabilities in Memorization (L1), Comprehension (L2), and Analysis \& Reasoning (L3). It encompasses a variety of tasks drawn from diverse scientific fields, including biology, chemistry, material, and medicine. To ensure the reliability of SciAssess, rigorous quality control measures have been implemented, ensuring accuracy, anonymization, and compliance with copyright standards. SciAssess evaluates 11 LLMs, highlighting their strengths and areas for improvement. We hope this evaluation supports the ongoing development of LLM applications in scientific literature analysis. SciAssess and its resources are available at \url{https://github.com/sci-assess/SciAssess}.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Babel: Jailbreaking Safety Attention via Obfuscation Distribution Optimized Sampling

    cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Babel is an efficient black-box jailbreaking framework that formalizes sparse safety attention heads via a mathematical obfuscation model and uses iterative distribution refinement to achieve higher attack success rat...

  2. StatEval: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Large Language Models in Statistics

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0

    StatEval is a new 16,000-question statistics benchmark showing that even strong LLMs score below 60% on research-level statistical proof tasks.

  3. PeerCheck: Enhancing LLM-Generated Academic Reviews Towards Human-Level Quality

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    PeerCheck finds that chain-of-thought prompting improves LLM academic reviews while retrieval-augmented generation sometimes lowers quality, and that LLMs and humans emphasize different aspects of papers.

  4. From Text to Discovery: How Large Language Models Are Reshaping Research Across Scientific and Humanistic Disciplines

    cs.DL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    LLMs accelerate research workflows from idea generation to writing but introduce challenges like hallucination, bias, opacity, and ten systemic risks requiring new governance frameworks.

  5. From Text to Discovery: How Large Language Models Are Reshaping Research Across Scientific and Humanistic Disciplines

    cs.DL 2026-06 conditional novelty 3.0

    A cross-disciplinary review of 151 studies concludes LLMs accelerate research workflows while introducing recurring technical and ethical risks, including ten it flags as underexplored.