Yu Su

Qianheng Zhang, Song Gao, Chen Wei et al.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have fueled growing interest in automating geospatial analysis and GIS workflows, yet their actual capabilities remain uncertain. In this work, we call for rigorous evaluation of LLMs on well-defined geoprocessing tasks before making claims about full GIS automation. To this end, we present GeoAnalystBench, a benchmark of 50 Python-based tasks derived from real-world geospatial problems and carefully validated by GIS experts. Each task is paired with a minimum deliverable product, and evaluation covers workflow validity, structural alignment, semantic similarity, and code quality (CodeBLEU). Using this benchmark, we assess both proprietary and open source models. Results reveal a clear gap: proprietary models such as ChatGPT-4o-mini achieve high validity 95% and stronger code alignment (CodeBLEU 0.39), while smaller open source models like DeepSeek-R1-7B often generate incomplete or inconsistent workflows (48.5% validity, 0.272 CodeBLEU). Tasks requiring deeper spatial reasoning, such as spatial relationship detection or optimal site selection, remain the most challenging across all models. These findings demonstrate both the promise and limitations of current LLMs in GIS automation and provide a reproducible framework to advance GeoAI research with human-in-the-loop support.

Lingbo Mo, Zeyi Liao, Boyuan Zheng et al. · microsoft-research

Language agents powered by large language models (LLMs) have seen exploding development. Their capability of using language as a vehicle for thought and communication lends an incredible level of flexibility and versatility. People have quickly capitalized on this capability to connect LLMs to a wide range of external components and environments: databases, tools, the Internet, robotic embodiment, etc. Many believe an unprecedentedly powerful automation technology is emerging. However, new automation technologies come with new safety risks, especially for intricate systems like language agents. There is a surprisingly large gap between the speed and scale of their development and deployment and our understanding of their safety risks. Are we building a house of cards? In this position paper, we present the first systematic effort in mapping adversarial attacks against language agents. We first present a unified conceptual framework for agents with three major components: Perception, Brain, and Action. Under this framework, we present a comprehensive discussion and propose 12 potential attack scenarios against different components of an agent, covering different attack strategies (e.g., input manipulation, adversarial demonstrations, jailbreaking, backdoors). We also draw connections to successful attack strategies previously applied to LLMs. We emphasize the urgency to gain a thorough understanding of language agent risks before their widespread deployment.