Papers › NuclearQA: A Human-Made Benchmark for Language Models for the Nuclear Domain

NuclearQA: A Human-Made Benchmark for Language Models for the Nuclear Domain

17 Oct 2023arXiv:2310.10920archive 2025-07-28

Anurag Acharya, Sai Munikoti, Aaron Hellinger, Sara Smith, Sridevi Wagle, Sameera Horawalavithana

As LLMs have become increasingly popular, they have been used in almost every field. But as the application for LLMs expands from generic fields to narrow, focused science domains, there exists an ever-increasing gap in ways to evaluate their efficacy in those fields. For the benchmarks that do exist, a lot of them focus on questions that don't require proper understanding of the subject in question. In this paper, we present NuclearQA, a human-made benchmark of 100 questions to evaluate language models in the nuclear domain, consisting of a varying collection of questions that have been specifically designed by experts to test the abilities of language models. We detail our approach and show how the mix of several types of questions makes our benchmark uniquely capable of evaluating models in the nuclear domain. We also present our own evaluation metric for assessing LLM's performances due to the limitations of existing ones. Our experiments on state-of-the-art models suggest that even the best LLMs perform less than satisfactorily on our benchmark, demonstrating the scientific knowledge gap of existing LLMs.

PaperPDFCode

Code

pnnl/expert2 officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorchBSD-2-Clause report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Focus

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections