mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

KWBench: Measuring Unprompted Problem Recognition in Knowledge Work

arXiv 2604.15760 ↗First posted 17 Apr 2026cs.AI cs.GTcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce the first version of KWBench (Knowledge Work Bench), a benchmark for unprompted problem recognition in large language models: can an LLM identify a professional scenario before attempting to solve it. Existing frontier benchmarks have saturated, and most knowledge-work evaluations to date reduce to extraction or task completion against a specification. KWBench targets the step before that: recognizing the governing structure of the situation from raw inputs alone. The benchmark contains 223 tasks sourced from practitioners across acquisitions, contract negotiations, clinical pharmacy, organizational politics, fraud analysis, and incentive design. Each task encodes a formal game-theoretic pattern (principal-agent conflict, signaling, mechanism design failure, strategic omission, coalitional dynamics, strategic interdependence) and carries structured ground truth recording the expert reading of the situation and the anticipated failure modes. Models receive raw data and a task prompt with no indication of problem type. Scoring is a three-tier rubric gated by a mandatory conjunctive check. Mandatory criteria encode the predicted wrong paths. We evaluate 16 models. The best model passes on 27.9% of tasks. The top two models agree on only 31.7% of their passes. Among the top 8, 44 tasks are solved by exactly one model; routing across the top 8 covers 50.7% of the benchmark, nearly double the best single model. Conditional on passing, quality scores converge (approx 83% across models); unconditional scores do not. Same models articulate the relevant game-theoretic concept correctly when asked, then fail to apply it unprompted. We release KWBench to shift how frontier models are evaluated on knowledge work, scoring them on whether they recognize the right problem from the situation alone, not only on how well they execute once the problem has been framed for them.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Apr 2026.

Builds on

19 of 50 references.

References · 19

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  4. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  5. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
  6. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
  7. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
  8. 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
  9. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
  10. 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,998
  11. 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,848
  12. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,267
7 more
  1. 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,128
  2. 2023Towards Expert-Level Medical Question Answering with Large Language Modelscited by 384
  3. 2023LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 336
  4. 2022WHEN FLUE MEETS FLANG: Benchmarks and Large Pre-trained Language Model for Financial Domaincited by 117
  5. 2025The AI Productivity Index (APEX)cited by 10
  6. 2024AgreeMate: Teaching LLMs to Hagglecited by 5
  7. 2026MERIT Feedback Elicits Better Bargaining in LLM Negotiatorscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.