Neuro-Symbolic AI for LEED compliance: Document-Centric Benchmarking, Deterministic Numeric Checking, and When Multimodal Hurts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
LEED v4.1 BD+C certification remains a document-intensive process that requires reviewers to read hundreds of pages of project evidence and apply credit-specific threshold logic by hand. This paper investigates whether small, locally deployed language models can perform meaningful screening of LEED documentation and how deterministic symbolic components should share that work. A neuro-symbolic pipeline is introduced that aligns project PDFs to LEED credit sections, retrieves evidence with credit-aware keyword signatures, verifies compliance with a locally hosted 4-billion-parameter language model, and applies a LEED-specific numeric checker to quantitative thresholds. Experiments on four university buildings (484 PDFs, 153 credit-level decisions) show that a 4-billion-parameter model (gemma3:4b) is the strongest text-only core verifier, achieving 67.3% accuracy and outperforming a larger 8-billion-parameter model (llama3.1:8b) in this task. The deterministic numeric checker corrects arithmetic errors on key quantitative credits, moving EA-p2 from 50% to 100% accuracy and improving several other credits when required values are reliably extracted. At the same time, the full neuro-symbolic configuration achieves 61.6% overall accuracy, trailing the best text-only baseline due to extraction failures and conservative behavior on qualitative categories. Systematic ablations show that adding low-resolution drawing images (150-300 dpi) consistently reduces accuracy, and that prompt effectiveness depends on the building's ground-truth PASS rate: rubric prompts perform best on documentation-rich projects, while chain-of-thought prompts perform best on documentation-lean projects. Within the specific scope of LEED v4.1 BD+C compliance verification over raw project documentation, this pipeline and its baselines provide an initial reproducible reference point for both accuracy and failure modes.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jul 2026.
Builds on
8 of 14 references.
References · 8
- 2023A Survey of Confidence Estimation and Calibration in Large Language Modelscited by 256
- 2025Confidence Improves Self-Consistency in LLMscited by 113
- 2025A Systematic Review of Key Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Systems: Progress, Gaps, and Future Directionscited by 31
- 2024Mirror-Consistency: Harnessing Inconsistency in Majority Votingcited by 17
- 2025Large Language Model-Driven Code Compliance Checking in Building Information Modelingcited by 10
- 2025Enhancing Domain-Specific Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Synthetic Data Generation and Evaluation using Reasoning Modelscited by 4
- 2024Exploring Gen-AI applications in building research and industry: A reviewcited by 2
- 2025An Integrated Platform for LEED Certification Automation Using Computer Vision and LLM-RAGcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025VERAFI: Verified Agentic Financial Intelligence through Neurosymbolic Policy Generation
- 2026Neuro-Symbolic Financial Reasoning via Deterministic Fact Ledgers and Adversarial Low-Latency Hallucination Detector
- 2026Neuro-Symbolic Verification of LLM Outputs for Data-Sensitive Domains (extended preprint)
- 2026CreditAudit: 2nd Dimension for LLM Evaluation and Selection
- 2026Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning for Chartered Accountancy
- 2026From Accuracy to Auditability: A Survey of Determinism in Financial AI Systems
- 2026Neuro-Symbolic Proof Generation for Scaling Systems Software Verification
- 2026FinGround: Detecting and Grounding Financial Hallucinations via Atomic Claim Verification