ArticleScientific reports2025
Arch-Eval benchmark for assessing chinese architectural domain knowledge in large language models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multi-agent collaborative pathways for Chinese traditional architectural image generation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The burgeoning application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Natural Language Processing (NLP) has prompted scrutiny of their domain-specific knowledge processing, especially in the construction industry. Despite high demand, there is a scarcity of evaluative studies for LLMs in this area. This paper introduces the "Arch-Eval" framework, a comprehensive tool for assessing LLMs across the architectural domain, encompassing design, engineering, and planning knowledge. It employs a standardized dataset with a minimum of 875 questions tested over seven iterations to ensure reliable assessment outcomes. Through experiments using the "Arch-Eval" framework on 14 different LLMs, we evaluated two key metrics: Stability (to quantify the consistency of LLM responses under random variations) and Accuracy (the correctness of the information provided by LLMs). The results reveal significant differences in the performance of these models in the domain of architectural knowledge question-answering. Our findings show that the average accuracy difference between Chain-of-Thought (COT) evaluation and Answer-Only (AO) evaluation is less than 3%, but the response time for COT is significantly longer, extending to 26 times that of AO (62.23 seconds per question vs. 2.38 seconds per question). Advancing LLM utility in construction necessitates future research focusing on domain customization, reasoning enhancement, and multimodal interaction improvements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.