Ben Gaiarin

Jannis Bulian, Mike S. Schäfer, Afra Amini et al.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) rise in popularity, it is necessary to assess their capability in critically relevant domains. We present a comprehensive evaluation framework, grounded in science communication research, to assess LLM responses to questions about climate change. Our framework emphasizes both presentational and epistemological adequacy, offering a fine-grained analysis of LLM generations spanning 8 dimensions and 30 issues. Our evaluation task is a real-world example of a growing number of challenging problems where AI can complement and lift human performance. We introduce a novel protocol for scalable oversight that relies on AI Assistance and raters with relevant education. We evaluate several recent LLMs on a set of diverse climate questions. Our results point to a significant gap between surface and epistemological qualities of LLMs in the realm of climate communication.

Michelle Chen Huebscher, Katharine Mach, Aleksandar Stanić et al.

Evaluating how Large Language Models (LLMs) handle complex, specialized knowledge remains a critical challenge. We address this through the lens of climate change by introducing CLINB, a benchmark that assesses models on open-ended, grounded, multimodal question answering tasks with clear requirements for knowledge quality and evidential support. CLINB relies on a dataset of real users' questions and evaluation rubrics curated by leading climate scientists. We implement and validate a model-based evaluation process and evaluate several frontier models. Our findings reveal a critical dichotomy. Frontier models demonstrate remarkable knowledge synthesis capabilities, often exhibiting PhD-level understanding and presentation quality. They outperform "hybrid" answers curated by domain experts assisted by weaker models. However, this performance is countered by failures in grounding. The quality of evidence varies, with substantial hallucination rates for references and images. We argue that bridging this gap between knowledge synthesis and verifiable attribution is essential for the deployment of AI in scientific workflows and that reliable, interpretable benchmarks like CLINB are needed to progress towards building trustworthy AI systems.