cs.AIMay 27, 2026

BEAMS: Benchmarking and Evaluating AI for Modeling and Simulation

Authors: Sara MetcalfWilliam Schoenberg

Abstract

AI tools to support real world decision making must be able to build simulation models that inform their recommendations and render them interpretable. Tools that can automate aspects of modeling practice must complement human expertise, not replace it. The BEAMS Initiative aims to guide the development of AI tools for modeling and simulation toward forms that are responsible and ethical by establishing benchmarks for human centered modeling and simulation practices. The initiative uses open digital and organizational infrastructure to collaboratively evaluate AI tools for modeling and simulation. The open source sd ai project hosted by the initiative establishes transparency and enables contributions to be shared broadly. A steering group focuses on prioritizing potential benchmarks, while a technical group focuses on implementing the benchmarks in the form of automated tests. Tests for several distinct categories of evaluation have been implemented and applied to AI tools that support qualitative model building, quantitative model building, and model discussion. These include tests for causal translation, model iteration, causal reasoning, conformance, model behavior explanation, suggested model building steps, and suggested model fixes. When engines from the sd ai project are coupled with different LLMs, their performance on these evaluations reveals variability across different AI tools. The evaluations implemented by the initiative demonstrate that AI enabled modeling tools perform better at discussion and basic qualitative tasks than with causal reasoning and quantitative error fixing. No single LLM dominates across engine types, highlighting the importance of specific tasks and tradeoffs between speed and accuracy. Ongoing efforts of the initiative aim to incorporate benchmarks that address concerns about bias by considering alternative perspectives and human centered use cases.

Explore similar work

Jun 29, 2026cs.AI

How Can AI Find My Model? A Model-Finding Experimental Study Considering Data Formats, Embeddings, and Retrieval Strategies

Discovering simulation models for reuse remains a fundamental challenge in Modeling and Simulation (M&S). When many models coexist, identifying those that align with a given modeling intent remains difficult. Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly retrieval-based approaches, offer a promising pathway to operate at this semantic layer. In this paper, we present an experimental study investigating the impact of data representation, transformer-based embedding models, and retrieval strategies on the discovery of simulation models using natural language queries. We evaluated performance across multiple query types using standard information retrieval metrics, including recall@5 and nDCG@5. Results show that data representation matters, open-source embedding models can achieve high performance, and reranking methods are important, especially as query complexity increases. This work provides a baseline for AI-driven model discovery and discusses its role in advancing toward AI-driven composability and interoperability.
Jhon G. Botello, Jose J. Padilla, Erika Frydenlund +2
Jul 16, 2026cs.AI

Can We Trust Item Response Theory for AI Evaluation?

AI benchmarks increasingly leverage item-level statistical models, particularly item response theory (IRT), to estimate model capabilities, rank systems, select informative examples, and diagnose benchmark quality. However, AI benchmark data often departs from the data regime of human testing, for which standard IRT estimation tools were originally developed: benchmarks typically involve fewer evaluated models, far more items, and capability distributions that may be skewed, clustered, or multimodal. We examine how these regime mismatches challenge the reliability of IRT modeling for AI evaluation. Using item parameters and capability distributions derived from six widely used LLM benchmarks, we simulate response matrices under three common IRT models and compare four estimation tools used in recent benchmark studies: marginal maximum likelihood, Markov chain Monte Carlo, variational inference, and a neural pseudo-Siamese estimator. Across 18,000 simulation conditions, we systematically evaluate computational feasibility, scalability, and the reliability of IRT inferences about model rankings, predicted performance, and item characteristics. Results show that classical estimators can become infeasible in large benchmark settings, whereas scalable estimators can produce unreliable item-level and ranking inferences with small or nonnormally distributed model sets. This study identifies when latent trait models reliably support or risk distorting AI benchmarking claims, and what sample sizes and diagnostics are needed for trustworthy use.
Han Jiang, Sunbeom Kwon, Jinwen Luo +2
May 31, 2026cs.AI

The Case for Model Science: Verify, Explore, Steer, Refine

We argue that the AI community is now ready to move beyond benchmarking and consolidate scattered efforts in model analysis into a systematic discipline, a direction we term Model Science. Complex AI models now serve billions of users, yet our understanding of how they work lags far behind our ability to deploy them. Decades of benchmark-driven research have delivered remarkable progress: extensive leaderboards, a wide range of performance metrics, tracking capability gains across diverse tasks; yet this success has also revealed the limits of benchmarks as they tell us whether models perform but not why they succeed or fail, they miss critical failure modes, such as hallucinations or shortcuts. Precedents from established sciences point the way forward: cognitive science shows that understanding complex systems requires complementary levels of analysis; neuroscience demonstrates that deep study of single cases reveals what population studies miss; medicine teaches that specialised training must develop alongside research practice; and agriculture models how shared infrastructure and principles enable cumulative progress. These lessons inform three foundations for Model Science. First, we propose to consolidate research around four functional perspectives: Verify, Explore, Steer, and Refine that address complementary questions about model behaviour. Second, we discuss the required infrastructure for cumulative knowledge: catalogues of datasets, models and findings. Third, we highlight the need for deep analysis of individual model instances, not just model families, because single cases can reveal what population studies miss.
Przemyslaw Biecek, Luca Longo, Jianlong Zhou +3