GIScholarBench: Benchmarking LLM Overconfidence in GIS Research
Authors: Zongrng Li, Mingzheng Yang, Lei Zou, Hongxu Ma, Hao Tian, Siqi Zhou, Wenjing Gong, Kaili Zhang, +3 more
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic research workflows, but scholarly tasks require high factual precision and therefore expose a key weakness: overconfidence. Here, overconfidence is defined behaviorally as the tendency to produce confident, assertive, and well-formatted outputs even when the underlying knowledge is incomplete or unverifiable, rather than as a calibration gap between stated confidence and accuracy. To examine this issue, we introduce GIScholarBench, a benchmark built from 10,865 papers published in 25 core GIScience journals between 2020 and 2025. The benchmark covers three tasks with increasing cognitive complexity: metadata retrieval, literature linking, and research direction generation. We evaluate Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 3, and ChatGPT 5.3 through their native web interfaces under real-world user-facing conditions. Results show consistent overconfidence across all tasks. In metadata retrieval, ChatGPT 5.3 achieves the highest accuracy, but all models still generate definitive titles and DOIs when predictions are wrong. In literature linking, Claude Sonnet 4.5 recovers the most references, but all models show a clear gap between top-ranked retrieval and longer citation lists, suggesting that references are extended beyond reliable retrieval capacity. In research direction generation, AI-generated directions show lower topic coverage, higher novel miss rates, and lower semantic diversity than real future-citing papers. These findings suggest that LLM overconfidence is task-invariant but takes different forms: factual overgeneration in retrieval, unreliable citation expansion in literature linking, and overconfidence in output completeness during research ideation.
Large language models (LLMs) often produce incorrect answers with high confidence, yet the factors associated with such overconfidence remain insufficiently understood. We study this problem through the lens of knowledge popularity. Using entity-centric factual QA derived from Wikidata triplets, we characterize popularity through question entity popularity, answer popularity, and question-answer co-occurrence. We find two consistent patterns. First, hallucinated answers are far from random: compared with ground-truth answers, they tend to be more popular or more frequently associated with the question entity. Second, confidence is strongly tied to the popularity of generated answers: even among incorrect predictions, more popular answers or those with higher question-answer co-occurrence receive higher confidence. Together, these findings suggest that popular but wrong alternatives may contribute to overconfidence. We further show that popularity-related signals can mitigate overconfidence and improve overall confidence estimation. Across six models and three datasets, incorporating knowledge popularity reduces average confidence on incorrect answers from 0.765 to 0.254 and overall ECE from 0.356 to 0.050, while improving Alignment from 77.08% to 83.72%.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to guide research methodology, yet their default methodological tendencies under minimal prompting remain unclear. Here, we prompt GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.2 with an LLM-extracted research question from each of 1,000 recent arXiv computer-science papers and compare the resulting methodology suggestions against a paper-derived experimental inventory. Since we provide only the research question, the differences we measure reflect initial suggestions and not how optimal those suggestions are. We extract structured method features from both sources, map them into a shared taxonomy, and quantify divergence across multiple taxonomy dimensions including model provider, dataset task type, and evaluation metric type. The strongest imbalance appears in provider choice, with Jensen-Shannon divergence about 3-5x larger than any other taxonomy dimension. Other/Academic single-occurrence models are underrepresented by 23-24 percentage points, while reused academic/community models are slightly overrepresented (4-6pp). LLMs also suggest a much narrower range of methods overall: the effective number of model entities contracts from 1,232 to 59-96, and inter-LLM rank correlations (0.55-0.68) generally exceed LLM-to-paper correlations (0.33-0.56), so the distortions are largely shared across models. Popularity baselines, BM25 retrieval calibration, and paper-level similarity tests confirm that the outputs are query-specific responses, but filtered through a narrower set of options. Researchers who rely on LLM suggestions without cross-checking therefore risk narrowing their methodological search space toward a more concentrated default.
Francesca Carlon, Brecht Verbeken, Vincent Ginis +1
Geographic Information System (GIS) professionals rely on multi-step spatial analysis workflows to support decision-making in urban planning, disaster response, and environmental monitoring. The process is tedious, time-consuming, and error-prone. While recent large language model (LLM) agents equipped with external tools have the potential to automate geospatial analysis, their ability to perform realistic GIS workflows remains largely unexplored. Existing GIS agent benchmarking datasets are mostly drawn from textbooks, tutorials, or LLM-generated seeds and remain limited in size and trajectory depth. More importantly, none provides ground truth outputs. They therefore rely on surrogate signals such as code similarity, trajectory matching, or LLM and VLM judges, which can conflate workflow resemblance with task correctness. To address this gap, we introduce GISAgentBench, a benchmark of 349 multi-step GIS tasks curated from GIS Stack Exchange and instantiated on real public data across six selected geographic areas of interest. Each task ships with an executable reference trajectory and an exact ground truth output file, enabling strict, deterministic, tolerance-aware output matching beyond LLM judging. Evaluations of six LLM models reveal that realistic GIS workflows remain challenging: the best agent completes only 32.7% of tasks under strict tolerance-aware scoring, although most models produce outputs that are close to the ground truth.