Assessing the AI Readiness of Construction Datasets: A Multidimensional Operational Framework

Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems are becoming the interface to buildings, answering questions and controlling operations, but a building's readiness for them has not been systematically assessed. This study proposes a framework to quantify it. First, a building's knowledge graph sets two ceilings. The answerable-readiness ceiling is the share of operational questions its data could answer, and the actuation-readiness ceiling is the share of control actions it exposes. Second, a reference AI agent's accuracy on a fixed set of these questions shows how much of the ceilings is realized. On a simulated office, the agent realizes 0.62 of a 0.64 answerable ceiling, so missing data, not the AI, limit readiness, except in naming a fault's cause. Across 37 public real-building graphs, the median answerable ceiling is 0.16, and in 15 of 45, unlinked sensors lower it. The framework turns "is this building AI-ready?" into an auditable, ranked retrofit question.

AI-for-Science (AI4Science) is increasingly transforming scientific discovery by embedding machine learning models into prediction, simulation, and hypothesis generation workflows across domains. However, the effectiveness of these models is fundamentally constrained by the AI-readiness of scientific data, for which no scalable and systematic evaluation mechanism currently exists. In this work, we propose SciHorizon-DataEVA, a novel agentic system to scalable AI-readiness evaluation of heterogeneous scientific data. At the evaluation-criteria level, we introduce the Sci-TQA2 principles, which organize AI-readiness into four complementary dimensions: Governance Trustworthiness, Data Quality, AI Compatibility, and Scientific Adaptability. Each dimension is decomposed into measurable atomic elements that enable fine-grained and executable assessment. To operationalize these principles at scale, we develop Sci-TQA2-Eval, a hierarchical multi-agent evaluation approach orchestrated through a directed, cyclic workflow. Our Sci-TQA2-Eval dynamically constructs dataset-aware evaluation specifications by combining lightweight dataset profiling, applicability-aware metric activation, and knowledge-augmented planning grounded in domain constraints and dataset-paper signals. These specifications are executed through an adaptive, tool-centric evaluation mechanism with built-in verification and self-correction, enabling scalable and reliable assessment across heterogeneous scientific data. Extensive experiments on scientific datasets spanning multiple domains demonstrate the effectiveness and generality of SciHorizon-DataEVA for principled AI-readiness evaluation.

Assessing the maturity of artificial intelligence technologies is essential for investment decisions, project management, and policy monitoring, yet the available readiness frameworks are heterogeneous and difficult to apply automatically: the adaptation of Technology Readiness Levels to AI lacks AI-specific gating criteria, the Machine Learning Technology Readiness Levels presuppose access to internal process artifacts, and AI/data readiness dimension models employ scales that resist direct comparison. This paper makes two contributions. First, we unify these three frameworks into the Unified AI Readiness Level (AIRL), a nine-level ordinal scale built on an environmental evidence ladder and complemented by dimensional caps (covering specification, data existence, data quality, data legality, expert knowledge, and algorithmic maturity) together with a generality-anchoring rule and explicit assignment disciplines, so that a readiness level becomes decidable from a natural-language description of the work alone. Second, we propose RAIL (Readiness Assessment via Independent LLM-experts), a panel-of-experts classifier that operationalizes the scale: one evidence agent and six independent dimension agents, each a large language model with a narrowly scoped mandate, deliver verdicts that a deterministic minimum rule aggregates and a chief expert reviews under asymmetric authority, confirming or lowering the panel's recommendation but never raising it above the caps. The method was tested in the analysis of several research works showing consistency and avoiding overestimation from monolithic LLM classifiers.