pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22079 · v1 · pith:Y5XIBTGBnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 💻 cs.CL

Ishigaki-IDS-Bench: A Benchmark for Generating Information Delivery Specification from BIM Information Requirements

Ryo Kanazawa , Koyo Hidaka , Teppei Miyamoto , Takayuki Kato , Tomoki Ando , Chenguang Wang , Dayuan Jiang , Naofumi Fujita
show 4 more authors
Shuhei Saitoh Atomu Kondo Koki Arakawa Daiho Nishioka
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 06:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords IDS generationBIMlarge language modelsstructured outputbenchmarkInformation Delivery SpecificationIFCXML compliance
0
0 comments X

The pith

A new benchmark shows LLMs can partly turn BIM requirements into IDS XML but rarely produce fully compliant outputs.

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

The paper creates Ishigaki-IDS-Bench, a set of 166 expert-verified examples drawn from 83 practical BIM scenarios and supplied in both Japanese and English along with matching gold IDS files. It tests ten large language models in a zero-shot setting and measures results with audits for processability, structure, and content plus a content-agreement score against the gold files. The strongest model reaches 65.6 percent macro F1 on content agreement, yet only 27.7 percent of its outputs pass the full content audit. These findings indicate that current models can express some of the needed building information but have difficulty generating XML that consistently obeys the IDS standard and IFC vocabulary rules. The released benchmark and scripts are intended to support further work on reliable structured generation for construction data exchange.

Core claim

Ishigaki-IDS-Bench supplies 166 expert-authored and verified BIM information requirement examples paired with gold IDS XML files and shows that, in zero-shot evaluation across ten LLMs, the best model attains 65.6 percent macro F1 for content agreement while only 27.7 percent of outputs pass the Content audit, revealing that models can capture portions of the requirements yet still struggle to generate stable XML that satisfies the IDS standard and IFC vocabulary constraints.

What carries the argument

Ishigaki-IDS-Bench, a dataset of 166 expert-verified BIM-to-IDS examples evaluated by IDSAuditTool audits for processability, structure and content together with content-agreement metrics against gold files.

If this is right

  • Current LLMs can capture some information requirements but require advances to meet exact XML and IFC constraints reliably.
  • The benchmark enables direct comparison of models and systematic failure analysis for structured output tasks.
  • It can be used to test new constrained generation techniques aimed at domain standards.
  • The multilingual and multi-domain coverage allows evaluation of generalization across construction contexts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the examples prove representative, the benchmark could serve as a standard test suite for tools that automate information delivery specifications.
  • Similar evaluation setups may prove useful in other engineering fields that demand outputs conform to precise industry XML schemas.
  • Closing the observed gap could reduce manual effort in creating BIM information exchanges for real projects.

Load-bearing premise

The 83 practical scenarios, when expanded by experts into 166 verified examples, accurately represent real-world BIM information requirements across languages and construction domains.

What would settle it

A test in which any model or method produces outputs that pass the Content audit on at least 80 percent of the 166 examples would show that LLMs can stably generate IDS XML meeting the required standards.

read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to generate structured outputs such as JSON, SQL, and code, yet public resources remain limited for evaluating generation that must simultaneously satisfy industry-standard XML and domain vocabulary constraints. This paper presents Ishigaki-IDS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating the ability to generate Information Delivery Specification (IDS) XML from Building Information Modeling (BIM) information requirements. The benchmark contains 166 BIM/IDS expert-authored and verified examples created by expanding 83 practical scenarios into Japanese and English, corresponding gold IDS files, and metadata for input format, language, turn setting, IFC version, and construction domain. Its evaluation combines IDSAuditTool-based Processability, Structure, and Content audits with content-agreement evaluation against gold IDS files. In zero-shot evaluation over 10 LLMs, the best model reaches 65.6% macro F1 for content agreement, while only 27.7% of outputs pass the Content audit. These results show that current LLMs can express part of the information requirements as IDS, but still struggle to stably generate XML that satisfies the IDS standard and IFC vocabulary constraints. Ishigaki-IDS-Bench supports comparative evaluation, failure analysis, and the development of constrained structured generation methods that conform to domain standards. We release the evaluation scripts and benchmark data under the CC BY 4.0 license on GitHub and Hugging Face.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Ishigaki-IDS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs on generating Information Delivery Specification (IDS) XML from BIM information requirements. The benchmark comprises 166 expert-authored and verified examples, created by expanding 83 practical scenarios into Japanese/English pairs with corresponding gold IDS files and metadata. In zero-shot evaluations across 10 LLMs, the top-performing model achieves 65.6% macro F1 for content agreement with gold standards, yet only 27.7% of generated outputs pass the Content audit. The authors conclude that while LLMs can capture some aspects of the requirements, they struggle to produce stable XML outputs that fully comply with the IDS standard and IFC vocabulary constraints. The benchmark data, gold files, and evaluation scripts are released publicly under CC BY 4.0.

Significance. Assuming the test set is representative, this benchmark addresses an important gap in evaluating structured generation for domain-specific XML formats that must adhere to both syntactic standards and specialized vocabularies from the construction industry. The reported results provide concrete evidence of current limitations in LLM outputs for such tasks, which may motivate research into better constrained generation techniques. The public release of the full benchmark, including scripts for audits and content agreement evaluation, is a notable strength that enhances reproducibility and allows for community-driven extensions.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 Benchmark Construction] §3 (Benchmark Construction): The selection and expansion of the 83 practical scenarios into 166 examples is not accompanied by explicit selection criteria, a defined sampling frame, or coverage statistics (e.g., distribution across construction domains, IFC versions, or requirement types). This omission is load-bearing for the central claim, as the low pass rate on the Content audit (27.7%) is interpreted as evidence of general LLM struggles with IDS generation; without representativeness evidence, the results may instead reflect the specific scope of the chosen scenarios.
  2. [§5 Experiments and Results] §5 (Experiments): The manuscript provides numeric results and describes the use of IDSAuditTool for audits, but does not include details on the validation of the audit tool itself or how inter-expert agreement was measured during gold standard creation. This affects the reliability of the reported Processability, Structure, and Content audit outcomes.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'macro F1 for content agreement' would benefit from a brief parenthetical explanation or reference to the exact computation method used (e.g., averaging over requirement categories).
  2. [Introduction] Introduction: Additional citations to recent work on LLM structured output generation (beyond JSON/SQL/code) would strengthen the positioning of this benchmark within the broader literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important areas for improving transparency in benchmark construction and evaluation methodology. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 Benchmark Construction] §3 (Benchmark Construction): The selection and expansion of the 83 practical scenarios into 166 examples is not accompanied by explicit selection criteria, a defined sampling frame, or coverage statistics (e.g., distribution across construction domains, IFC versions, or requirement types). This omission is load-bearing for the central claim, as the low pass rate on the Content audit (27.7%) is interpreted as evidence of general LLM struggles with IDS generation; without representativeness evidence, the results may instead reflect the specific scope of the chosen scenarios.

    Authors: We agree that explicit selection criteria, a defined sampling frame, and coverage statistics are necessary to support claims about the generalizability of the observed LLM performance limitations. The 83 scenarios were drawn from real-world BIM information requirements collected through consultations with construction industry experts and standardized templates commonly used in Japanese and international projects. In the revised manuscript, we will expand §3 with a dedicated subsection describing the selection criteria (focusing on scenarios that exercise core IDS features such as property sets, classifications, and material specifications while ensuring verifiability), the sampling frame (starting from a larger pool of candidate requirements and filtering for practicality and expert feasibility), and quantitative coverage statistics including distributions across construction domains, IFC versions, and requirement types. These additions will allow readers to better evaluate whether the 27.7% Content audit pass rate reflects broader challenges in IDS generation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5 Experiments and Results] §5 (Experiments): The manuscript provides numeric results and describes the use of IDSAuditTool for audits, but does not include details on the validation of the audit tool itself or how inter-expert agreement was measured during gold standard creation. This affects the reliability of the reported Processability, Structure, and Content audit outcomes.

    Authors: We thank the referee for identifying this gap in methodological detail. The IDSAuditTool implements validation rules directly from the buildingSMART IDS standard specification for Processability and Structure audits, with Content audit checks based on IFC vocabulary constraints; we will add a description of its development and internal validation against official test cases in the revised §5. For gold standard creation, each example was authored by a primary expert and independently reviewed by two additional experts, with discrepancies resolved via discussion to achieve consensus. We did not compute quantitative inter-expert agreement metrics such as Cohen’s or Fleiss’ kappa. In the revision we will provide a fuller account of the verification workflow and note the consensus process. We are prepared to report the number of revisions required during verification and, if requested, to perform a post-hoc agreement analysis on a representative subset for the final version. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: benchmark results derive from external gold standards

full rationale

The paper introduces Ishigaki-IDS-Bench by expanding 83 practical scenarios into 166 expert-verified Japanese/English examples with independently authored gold IDS files. Zero-shot LLM evaluation computes macro F1 for content agreement and pass rates on IDSAuditTool audits directly against these gold references. No equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional reductions, or load-bearing self-citations appear; performance numbers are not forced by construction from the inputs. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. It relies on existing IDS and IFC standards plus standard LLM evaluation practices.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Expert-authored and verified scenarios provide reliable ground truth for evaluating structured generation against industry standards.
    The benchmark construction begins from 83 practical scenarios expanded and verified by BIM/IDS experts.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5837 in / 1311 out tokens · 49749 ms · 2026-05-22T06:47:34.614837+00:00 · methodology

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

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Luca Beurer-Kellner, Marc Fischer, and Martin Vechev. 2024. Guiding LLMs The Right Way: Fast, Non-Invasive Constrained Generation. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 235). PMLR, 3658–3673. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/beurer- kellner24a.html

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    buildingSMART International. 2024. IDS Audit Tool. https://github.com/ buildingSMART/IDS-Audit-tool

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    buildingSMART International. 2024. Information Delivery Specification (IDS). https://www.buildingsmart.org/standards/bsi-standards/information- delivery-specification-ids/

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Nanjiang Chen, Xuhui Lin, Hai Jiang, and Yi An. 2024. Automated Building Information Modeling Compliance Check through a Large Language Model Combined with Deep Learning and Ontology.Buildings14, 7 (2024), 1983. doi:10. 3390/buildings14071983

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Dickerson

    Yixin Dong, Charlie F. Ruan, Yaxing Cai, Ruihang Lai, Ziyi Xu, Yilong Zhao, and Tianqi Chen. 2025. XGrammar: Flexible and Efficient Structured Generation Engine for Large Language Models. arXiv:2411.15100 [cs.LG] doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2411.15100

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 2025

  6. [6]

    2008.BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, De- signers, Engineers and Contractors

    Chuck Eastman, Paul Teicholz, Rafael Sacks, and Kathleen Liston. 2008.BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, De- signers, Engineers and Contractors. John Wiley & Sons

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Zhiwei Fei, Xiaoyu Shen, Dawei Zhu, Fengzhe Zhou, Zhuo Han, Songyang Zhang, Kai Chen, Zongwen Shen, and Jidong Ge. 2023. LawBench: Benchmarking Legal Knowledge of Large Language Models. arXiv:2309.16289 [cs.CL] doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2309.16289

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Stefan Fuchs, Michael Witbrock, Johannes Dimyadi, and Robert Amor. 2024. Using Large Language Models for the Interpretation of Building Regulations. arXiv:2407.21060 [cs.AI] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.21060

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21060 2024

  9. [9]

    Yan Gao, Fuji Hu, Chengzhang Chai, Yiwei Weng, and Haijiang Li. 2026. Multi- agent Framework for Schema-guided Reasoning and Tool-augmented Interaction with IFC Models.Automation in Construction186 (2026), 106888. doi:10.1016/j. autcon.2026.106888

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2026

  10. [10]

    Saibo Geng, Martin Josifoski, Maxime Peyrard, and Robert West. 2023. Grammar- Constrained Decoding for Structured NLP Tasks without Finetuning. InPro- ceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Singapore, 10932–10952. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.674

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.674 2023

  11. [11]

    International Organization for Standardization. 2018. ISO 16739-1:2018: Indus- try Foundation Classes (IFC) for Data Sharing in the Construction and Facility Management Industries. https://www.iso.org/standard/70303.html

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Ryo Kanazawa, Koyo Hidaka, Teppei Miyamoto, Takayuki Kato, Tomoki Ando, Chenguang Wang, Dayuan Jiang, Naofumi Fujita, Shuhei Saitoh, Atomu Kondo, Koki Arakawa, and Daiho Nishioka. 2026. Ishigaki-IDS-Bench. doi:10.57967/hf/ 8873 Hugging Face dataset. Accessed: 2026-05-21

    work page doi:10.57967/hf/ 2026

  13. [13]

    Ryo Kanazawa, Koyo Hidaka, Teppei Miyamoto, Takayuki Kato, Tomoki Ando, Chenguang Wang, Dayuan Jiang, Naofumi Fujita, Shuhei Saitoh, Atomu Kondo, Koki Arakawa, and Daiho Nishioka. 2026. Ishigaki-IDS-Bench: Evaluation Code and Reproducibility Repository. doi:10.5281/zenodo.20319465 GitHub repository release v1.0.0. Accessed: 2026-05-21

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20319465 2026

  14. [14]

    Magdalena Kładź and Andrzej Szymon Borkowski. 2025. IDS Standard and bSDD Service as Tools for Automating Information Exchange and Verification in Projects Implemented in the BIM Methodology.Buildings15, 3 (2025), 378. doi:10.3390/buildings15030378

    work page doi:10.3390/buildings15030378 2025

  15. [15]

    Jin Kook Lee, Yong Cheol Lee, Moeid Shariatfar, Pedram Ghannad, and Jiansong Zhang. 2020. Generation of Entity-Based Integrated Model View Definition Modules for the Development of New BIM Data Exchange Standards.Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering34, 3 (2020), 04020011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943- 5487.0000888

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)cp.1943- 2020

  16. [16]

    Jia-Rui Lin, Yun-Hong Cai, Xiang-Rui Ni, Shaojie Zhou, and Peng Pan. 2026. Qwen-BIM: Developing Large Language Model for BIM-based Design with Domain-specific Benchmark and Dataset. arXiv:2602.20812 [cs.CL] doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2602.20812

    work page arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Bulou Liu, Zhenhao Zhu, Qingyao Ai, Yiqun Liu, and Yueyue Wu. 2024. LeDQA: A Chinese Legal Case Document-based Question Answering Dataset. InPro- ceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’24). ACM, 5385–5389. doi:10.1145/3627673.3679154

    work page doi:10.1145/3627673.3679154 2024

  18. [18]

    Langming Liu, Haibin Chen, Yuhao Wang, Yujin Yuan, Shilei Liu, Wenbo Su, Xiangyu Zhao, and Bo Zheng. 2025. ECKGBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models in E-commerce Leveraging Knowledge Graph. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’25). ACM, 6461–6465. doi:10.1145/3746252.3761613

    work page doi:10.1145/3746252.3761613 2025

  19. [19]

    Soumya Madireddy, Lu Gao, Zia Ud Din, Kinam Kim, Ahmed Senouci, Zhe Han, and Yunpeng Zhang. 2025. Large Language Model-Driven Code Compliance Checking in Building Information Modeling.Electronics14, 11 (2025), 2146. doi:10.3390/electronics14112146

    work page doi:10.3390/electronics14112146 2025

  20. [20]

    Lukas Netz, Jan Reimer, and Bernhard Rumpe. 2024. Using Grammar Masking to Ensure Syntactic Validity in LLM-based Modeling Tasks. InProceedings of the 27th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedings. ACM, 570–577. doi:10.1145/3652620.3687829

    work page doi:10.1145/3652620.3687829 2024

  21. [21]

    Bharathi Kannan Nithyanantham, Tobias Sesterhenn, Ashwin Nedungadi, Sergio Peral Garijo, Janis Zenkner, Christian Bartelt, and Stefan Lüdtke

    work page

  22. [22]

    arXiv:2511.05533 [cs.AI] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.05533

    MCP4IFC: IFC-Based Building Design Using Large Language Models. arXiv:2511.05533 [cs.AI] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.05533

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.05533

  23. [23]

    Zhenhui Ou, Dawei Li, Zhen Tan, Wenlin Li, Huan Liu, and Siyuan Song. 2025. Building Safer Sites: A Large-Scale Multi-Level Dataset for Construction Safety Research. arXiv:2508.09203 [cs.CV] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.09203

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.09203 2025

  24. [24]

    Kanghee Park, Jiayu Wang, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, Nadia Polikarpova, and Loris D’Antoni. 2024. Grammar-Aligned Decoding. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 37. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/ 2024/hash/2bdc2267c3d7d01523e2e17ac0a754f3-Abstract-Conference.html

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Seungjun Son, Ghang Lee, Jaehwan Jung, Jongsung Kim, and Kyungki Jeon

    work page

  26. [26]

    doi:10.1016/j.aei.2022.101731 Ishigaki-IDS-Bench CIKM Resources, Submission Draft,

    Automated Generation of a Model View Definition from an Information Delivery Manual Using idmXSD and buildingSMART Data Dictionary.Advanced Engineering Informatics54 (2022), 101731. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2022.101731 Ishigaki-IDS-Bench CIKM Resources, Submission Draft,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aei.2022.101731 2022

  27. [27]

    Issa Sugiura, Takashi Ishida, Taro Makino, Chieko Tazuke, Takanori Nak- agawa, Kosuke Nakago, and David Ha. 2025. EDINET-Bench: Evaluat- ing LLMs on Complex Financial Tasks using Japanese Financial Statements. arXiv:2506.08762 [cs.CL] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.08762

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.08762 2025

  28. [28]

    Artur Tomczak, Claudio Benghi, Léon van Berlo, and Eilif Hjelseth. 2024. Requir- ing Circularity Data in BIM with Information Delivery Specification.Journal of Circular Economy(2024). https://circulareconomyjournal.org/articles/requiring- circularity-data-in-bim-with-information-delivery-specification/

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Artur Tomczak, Léon van Berlo, Thomas Krijnen, André Borrmann, and Marzia Bolpagni. 2022. A Review of Methods to Specify Information Requirements in Digital Construction Projects. InProceedings of the 39th International Conference of CIB W78. Melbourne, Australia. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/9/092024

    work page doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/9/092024 2022

  30. [30]

    Efficient Guided Generation for Large Language Models

    Brandon T. Willard and Rémi Louf. 2023. Efficient Guided Generation for Large Language Models. arXiv:2307.09702 [cs.CL] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2307.09702

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09702 2023

  31. [31]

    Junwen Zheng and Martin Fischer. 2023. BIM-GPT: A Prompt-Based Virtual Assistant Framework for BIM Information Retrieval. arXiv:2304.09333 [cs.CL] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2304.09333

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.09333 2023