Benchmarking Fine-tuning and Retrieval Strategies for a Multimodal Language Model on the NRC Reactor Operator Licensing Examination
Authors: Isak Hwang, Yoon Pyo Lee
Organizations: aDepartment of Nuclear Engineering, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, 04763, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, South Korea · bThe Grainger College of Engineering, Nuclear, Plasma & Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA
Abstract
The integration of large language models (LLMs) into the nuclear power industry requires outputs grounded in domain-specific knowledge. This study evaluates a 31-billion-parameter open-weight multimodal model (Gemma 4 31B-IT) on its capacity to apply nuclear knowledge by benchmarking eight model-retrieval configurations against the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Reactor Operator licensing examination. We evaluate 14 Generic Fundamentals Examinations (GFE) from the 2015-2021 March sittings (seven pressurized and seven boiling water reactor exams) using the standard 80% human passing criterion. The base model is compared against configurations utilizing supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on Gemini-distilled chain-of-thought (CoT) rationales, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with BM25 sparse retrieval over the U.S. Department of Energy Fundamentals Handbook, and retrieval-augmented fine-tuning (RAFT). Within the retrieval pipeline, we compare fixed-size sliding-window chunking against structure-aware chunking. The SFT configuration with fixed-size chunking RAG met the criterion on 8 of the 14 examinations, outperforming all alternatives, whereas no configuration without fine-tuning passed any. Aggregate accuracy reached 79.7%, with a confidence interval spanning the threshold, and 80.2% on PWR items specifically. Furthermore, two regularities emerged: the preferred chunking strategy reverses depending on the model's training state, and RAFT underperforms compared to standard SFT in matching search environments. These results demonstrate which combination of fine-tuning and search approaches achieves operator-level capabilities.
Reviewing nuclear regulatory documents requires multi-hop reasoning across tens of thousands of pages, where judgments depend on evidence assembled across multiple chapters. We frame this task as planning: an LLM-based agent observes the evidence collected so far, picks the next document fragment to inspect, and stops when the evidence is sufficient. The agent operates over a vectorless document tree using browse, read, and search tools, and maintains a dynamic knowledge graph (KG) as state. On a 200-question benchmark over NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) documents, the system reaches 81.5% accuracy with a RAGAS Faithfulness of 0.93. The dominant performance factor is planning: against PageIndex, which uses the same document tree without state-conditioned action selection, the gap is +38.0pp (43.5% to 81.5%, p<0.001). The system also outperforms LightRAG (73.0%, p<0.05), HippoRAG (70.5%, p<0.01), and GraphRAG (49.5%, p<0.001), and matches RAPTOR (75.5%, p=0.11) without offline indexing. Edge inference adds 2.8x cost without raising accuracy; we retain it as a traceability module. Of 7,391 inferred edges, 3 Violates edges (0.04%) flag scope boundaries (Q058) and partial conformance (Q176) as typed annotations that a human reviewer can audit.
Practitioners deploying small open-weight large language models (LLMs) for medical question answering face a recurring design choice: invest in a domain-fine-tuned model, or keep a general-purpose model and inject domain knowledge at inference time via retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). We isolate this trade-off by holding model size, prompt template, decoding temperature, retrieval pipeline, and evaluation protocol fixed, and varying only (i) whether the model has been domain-adapted (Gemma 3 4B vs. MedGemma 4B, both 4-bit quantized and served via Ollama) and (ii) whether retrieved passages from a medical knowledge corpus are inserted into the prompt. We evaluate all four cells of this 2x2 design on the full MedQA-USMLE 4-option test split (1,273 questions) with three repetitions per question (15,276 LLM calls). Domain fine-tuning yields a +6.8 percentage-point gain in majority-vote accuracy over the general 4B baseline (53.3% vs. 46.4%, McNemar p < 10^-4). RAG over MedMCQA explanations does not produce a statistically significant gain in either model, and in the domain-tuned model the point estimate is slightly negative (-1.9 pp, p = 0.16). At this scale and on this benchmark, domain knowledge encoded in weights dominates domain knowledge supplied in context. We release the full experiment code and JSONL traces to support replication.
Knowledge benchmarks for LLMs face three issues: scaling-driven designs that do not operationalize disciplinary representativeness; flat-payment annotation that permits lazy consensus; and unaudited ranking instability under bounded test budgets. We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines, with two formal results. First, we cast representativeness as a coverage-style objective over expert-elicited anchors and operationalize disciplinary representativeness through a proxy, yielding a (1-1/e) greedy approximation (Proposition 1); the guarantee applies to the proxy, not to population representativeness. Second, we prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality, with incentive-compatibility threshold B > Delta C / Delta p_min (Theorem 1). Evaluating 42 models from 13 labs, the top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%, leaving substantial headroom below saturation. The full leaderboard shows a tiered structure rather than a smooth total order: a small frontier tier lies above 48%, a dense strong-model tier spans roughly 38-45%, and low-performing models remain only modestly above the 10% chance baseline. Tool augmentation adds up to 5.17 points across the five tool-use evaluations, with gains varying substantially across models. We report bootstrap ranking-stability statistics to make bounded-budget variance explicit and to discourage over-interpretation of adjacent ranks.