Geo-Spatial Concept Probing of Large Language Models: Abstraction, Compositionality, and Grounding
arXiv:2608. 07353v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Understanding concepts is fundamental to generalization.
arXiv:2608. 07411v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In the context of geodata, existing Large Language Models have often been studied in a homogeneous setting, which has considerably limited insights into their generalization capabilities.
arXiv:2608. 07353v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Understanding concepts is fundamental to generalization.
arXiv:2608. 03882v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Geospatial reasoning, i.
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.
arXiv:2607. 06482v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current benchmarks for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in data analysis often fail to reflect real-world settings.
Open-vocabulary Earth observation (EO) aims to localize geospatial concepts specified in natural language rather than a fixed label set. Existing benchmarks, however, usually cover narrow category vocabularies or limited query forms.
arXiv:2606. 10460v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent large language models (LLMs) have shown rapid progress in reading-based question answering (QA), where evidence is explicitly provided or can be trivially retrieved.
arXiv:2602. 16902v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We introduce LLM-Wikirace, a benchmark for evaluating planning, reasoning, and world knowledge in large language models (LLMs).
arXiv:2607. 02387v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: NASA and its data centers hold thousands of geoscience datasets and tools like Worldview, Giovanni, the Science Discovery Engine, and Harmony.
There have been many recent improvements in the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform complex tasks and answer domain-specific questions through techniques like Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG). However, reasoning abilities of LLMs, including spatial reasoning abilities, are still lacking.
Recent large language models (LLMs) often appear to exhibit spatial reasoning ability; however, this capability is largely \emph{symbolic}, arising from pattern matching over spatial language rather than true \emph{geometric} reasoning over space. Because LLMs operate on discrete tokens, they lack native support for continuous spatial representations, explicit geometric computation, and structured spatial operators.
arXiv:2606. 04381v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent large language models (LLMs) often appear to exhibit spatial reasoning ability; however, this capability is largely \emph{symbolic}, arising from pattern matching over spatial language rather than true \emph{geometric} reasoning over space.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated rapidly improving long-context capabilities, prompting a wave of benchmarks designed to evaluate them. However, existing long-context evaluations - from Needle-in-a-Haystack (NIAH) tests to more recent multi-hop reasoning and summarization tasks - predominantly measure average-case performance, and many are either saturated or lack robustness.