Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study introduces GB/T-Bench, the first benchmark designed for the structured review of national standard documents, addressing the inadequacies of existing LLM evaluations in rule-intensive contexts. By employing a hierarchical review taxonomy and a novel counterexample generation mechanism, the authors create a comprehensive dataset of review error instances that facilitate rigorous evaluation. The results indicate a significant performance gap between human experts and LLMs, with the proposed GB/T-Reviewer framework improving LLM performance from 0.3280 to 0.5094 CMCS, highlighting the importance of structured skill coordination in enhancing document review capabilities.
A new benchmark reveals that even the best LLMs lag significantly behind human experts in reviewing national standards, but structured coordination can bridge this gap.
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly support complex professional tasks, yet their capabilities in rule-intensive document review remain insufficiently evaluated. National standard documents, such as China GB/T standards, offer a representative testbed: they are lengthy, highly structured, and governed by explicit rules for scope, terminology, normative wording, and cross-section consistency. Existing benchmarks focus on domain knowledge and question answering, largely overlooking intrinsic quality review for professional documents. Such reviews rely heavily on human experts, making them costly and difficult to scale. To bridge this gap, we introduce GB/T-Bench, the first benchmark for the structured review of national standard documents. Its GB/T Review Taxonomy is a hierarchical schema covering document structure, scope alignment, normative modality, terminology consistency, and normative references, with 25 diagnosable error types. A controllable counterexample generation mechanism combines deterministic rules and constrained LLM rewriting to process 488 documents into 7,306 traceable review error instances for evaluation. We also develop a diagnosis-oriented evaluation protocol requiring exact matches on error location, review dimension, and error type, plus document-level coverage metrics. We further propose GB/T-Reviewer, a multi-agent framework that converts review knowledge into specialized skills and coordinates global inspection, targeted diagnosis, rule scanning, and result verification. Experiments with 14 mainstream LLMs reveal a substantial human-LLM gap: the strongest model achieves only 0.3280 CMCS versus 0.6640 for experts. GB/T-Reviewer raises the best CMCS to 0.5094, showing the value of structured skill coordination for rule-intensive document review. This work paves the way for trustworthy AI in standardization and other high-stakes document domains.
