CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning May 25, 2026

Design and Report Benchmarks for Knowledge Work

arXiv AI Archived May 25, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2605.23262v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The development of LLM agents has led to a growing body of work on knowledge-work AI, including coding, research, and healthcare. However, current knowledge-work evaluation and benchmark design still largely follow the logic of traditional NLP tasks. As a result, higher benchmark performance does not reliably show that a system can carry out knowledge work in real-world deployment settings. This paper contributes a three-step approach for making ex

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 22 May 2026] Design and Report Benchmarks for Knowledge Work Yining Hua, Hongbin Na, Cyrus Ayubcha, Levi Lian The development of LLM agents has led to a growing body of work on knowledge-work AI, including coding, research, and healthcare. However, current knowledge-work evaluation and benchmark design still largely follow the logic of traditional NLP tasks. As a result, higher benchmark performance does not reliably show that a system can carry out knowledge work in real-world deployment settings. This paper contributes a three-step approach for making explicit how benchmarked tasks represent the work claims attached to their scores: defining the work activity under evaluation, specifying the tested setting, and scoring the appropriate work product. We review work studies showing that knowledge work is organized through roles and responsibilities, local materials and tools, and artifacts that must remain usable in downstream workflows. We then translate these concerns into benchmark design and reporting guidance, covering how tasks should be mapped to work activities, how tested settings should specify materials, tools, roles, and constraints, and how scoring should focus on the work product left by the system. To name the work activity being evaluated and distinguish it from common benchmark tasks, we derive an inventory of 18 work activities from the O{*}NET occupational task database. We demonstrate the approach through three benchmark case analyses: GDPval, a non-code occupational deliverable benchmark; OfficeQA Pro, a grounded document-analysis benchmark scored by final answers; and APEX-SWE, a software-engineering benchmark with executable scored products. These cases show how benchmark design choices shape the strongest work claim a score can support, and where gaps arise between the benchmarked task, tested setting, scored product, and broader work claim. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2605.23262 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2605.23262v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.23262 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Yining Hua [view email] [v1] Fri, 22 May 2026 06:03:01 UTC (1,209 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-05 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    May 25, 2026
    Archived
    May 25, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗