arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.28591

Expert-validated STEM QA

Kihwan Han·Saurabh Patil·Chinmayee Shukla·Abhinav Sharma·Marko Pavlovic·Anshuman Lall·Mahesh Joshi
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Recent advancements in AI are helping scientists achieve breakthroughs in fields such as mathematics, medicine, and materials sciences. New evaluation datasets for AI models contribute to such advancement in AI. In the STEM domain, frontier models have consumed most of the available online data, creating the need for human-created datasets that codify the knowledge of leading experts in the domain. There are several STEM datasets available for the research community in this field. However, there are some gaps in these datasets, leaving room for improvement. Examples of gaps include (1) saturation in model performance on these datasets, leaving no head-room for meaningful evaluations, (2) skewed taxonomy distributions, (3) multiple choice question format that is misaligned with how scientists use AI in the real world, and (4) inaccurate answers and rationales partially led by a contest-based data collection and a time-bound review process. In this study, we present 'Expert-validated STEM QA', a high-quality, expert-validated STEM dataset (N=398) in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Mathematics, created by 241 domain experts. We (1) carefully designed a taxonomy with balanced distribution, (2) vetted question contributors with quality-driven incentive, (3) conducted multiple rounds of reviews with revisions validated by domain experts based on consensus, and (4) created the dataset in verifiable question and answer format. Our study demonstrated low performance ($<25\%$) of frontier AI models on the dataset as a benchmark. Post-training on a separate, private version of the dataset (N=2,000) increased performance of the open source model by $15\%$ relative to the baseline model (p=0.045) on the STEM subset of HLE-verified dataset, indicating potential utility of the dataset for model training. We have open-sourced a portion of our dataset for the AI research community.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Kihwan Han, Saurabh Patil, Chinmayee Shukla, Abhinav Sharma, Marko Pavlovic, Anshuman Lall, Mahesh Joshi. 2026-06-06. Expert-validated STEM QA. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28591

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

Discover connections

cs.AI subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread

Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Meta-ethics and AI: exploring the novel meta-ethical questions in the era of AI

With the development of artificial intelligence (AI), the landscape of meta-ethics, which has largely centred on human ethics, faces pressures that may significantly reconfigure it. In particular, if future AI systems were to exhibit sufficiently integrated capacities for moral reasoning, moral intentionality, and moral reflection, novel meta-ethical questions would arise concerning what I call "AI's own ethics", as distinct from ethical principles merely imposed on AI by human designers. This paper offers a conditional and methodological framework for identifying the questions that would emerge if such AI systems were to arise. On that basis, the paper distinguishes four domains of meta-ethical inquiry in the era of AI: questions about the nature of human ethics from the human perspective; questions about the nature of AI's own ethics from the human perspective; questions about the nature of human ethics from the AI perspective; and questions about the nature of AI's own ethics from the AI perspective. The paper then considers how some existing mainstream meta-ethical theories (such as cognitivism and non-cognitivism, error theory and success theory, relativism, and objective realism) might illuminate these domains, while arguing that many familiar human-centred formulations of those theories may not transfer straightforwardly to AI cases without substantial revision. The overall conclusion is that the emergence of AI's own ethics would place significant pressure on current frameworks and may require substantial refinement, reconstruction, or reconceptualisation.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

AI Morbidity and Mortality: A Framework for Clinical AI Failure Review

Clinical artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in real-world care, yet existing safety mechanisms are poorly suited to reconstructing and learning from individual AI-related errors and near-misses. Aggregate model monitoring can identify performance changes, and traditional patient safety reporting can capture adverse events, but neither is designed to explain how risk emerges across the interaction among AI systems, clinicians, workflows, and institutional controls. We propose AI Morbidity and Mortality (AI M&M), a structured, blameless framework for case-based review of clinical AI failures. The framework combines standardized case intake, evidence preservation and investigator-level reconstruction, tool-in-loop attribution, and corrective-action tracking. Each event is classified across four linked dimensions: Trigger - Mechanism - Clinical Pathway - Corrective Action, separating the condition that exposed a vulnerability from the process that produced risk, its consequence for care, and the remediation assigned. We demonstrate the framework using five illustrative outpatient medication and clinical decision-support cases; two clinician reviewers independently applied all four classification axes and reached agreement across all 20 axis-level classifications. AI M&M is intended to complement, rather than replace, model monitoring, patient safety reporting, and regulatory oversight by converting individual AI-in-workflow failures into actionable institutional learning. Prospective evaluation across institutions, AI systems, and clinical settings is needed.

cs.AI↗