arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2504.08779

Can AI Master Construction Management (CM)? Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Large Language Models on CM Certification Exams

Ruoxin Xiong·Yanyu Wang·Suat Gunhan·Yimin Zhu·Charles Berryman
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The growing complexity of construction management (CM) projects, coupled with challenges such as strict regulatory requirements and labor shortages, requires specialized analytical tools that streamline project workflow and enhance performance. Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance in general reasoning tasks, their effectiveness in tackling CM-specific challenges, such as precise quantitative analysis and regulatory interpretation, remains inadequately explored. To bridge this gap, this study introduces CMExamSet, a comprehensive benchmarking dataset comprising 689 authentic multiple-choice questions sourced from four nationally accredited CM certification exams. Our zero-shot evaluation assesses overall accuracy, subject areas (e.g., construction safety), reasoning complexity (single-step and multi-step), and question formats (text-only, figure-referenced, and table-referenced). The results indicate that GPT-4o and Claude 3.7 surpass typical human pass thresholds (70%), with average accuracies of 82% and 83%, respectively. Additionally, both models performed better on single-step tasks, with accuracies of 85.7% (GPT-4o) and 86.7% (Claude 3.7). Multi-step tasks were more challenging, reducing performance to 76.5% and 77.6%, respectively. Furthermore, both LLMs show significant limitations on figure-referenced questions, with accuracies dropping to approximately 40%. Our error pattern analysis further reveals that conceptual misunderstandings are the most common (44.4% and 47.9%), underscoring the need for enhanced domain-specific reasoning models. These findings underscore the potential of LLMs as valuable supplementary analytical tools in CM, while highlighting the need for domain-specific refinements and sustained human oversight in complex decision making.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ruoxin Xiong, Yanyu Wang, Suat Gunhan, Yimin Zhu, Charles Berryman. 2025-04-04. Can AI Master Construction Management (CM)? Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Large Language Models on CM Certification Exams. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08779

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Universal Topological Regularity of Syntactic Structures

Despite their widespread use, the principles governing the organisation of syntactic dependency trees remain poorly understood. I analyse dependency trees from 124 typologically, genetically, and geographically diverse languages. Their topology departs systematically from randomness. Relative to uniformly sampled random trees, dependency trees exhibit greater structural robustness and lower branching heterogeneity. I propose that these universal regularities emerge naturally from incremental grammatical encoding. I model this process using sublinear preferential attachment. The model accurately reproduces the observed topology. More generally, the results demonstrate how a universal statistical property of syntax can emerge from a simple, cognitively motivated generative process. They further illustrate a broader principle of efficiency by construction: communicatively efficient syntactic structures can emerge without direct optimisation for communication.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Reasoning in Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Thinking beyond the anthropomorphic paradigm benefits LLM research

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

cs.CL↗