CalBrief: A Pilot Diagnostic Benchmark for Evidence-Calibrated Scientific Briefing with Large Language Models

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as research assistants, yet it remains unclear whether they can calibrate research takeaways to the strength and scope of the supporting evidence. We study evidence-calibrated scientific briefing: given a bounded package of related papers, a system should generate package-level takeaways with evidence strength, scope boundaries, and missing-evidence caveats. We contribute a verified pilot benchmark of 16 heterogeneous scientific evidence packages and 96 human-verified takeaways, and we use CalBrief, an auditable role/gap/strength framework, as a diagnostic probe to locate where briefing breaks down. Under a fair-schema evaluation, structured organization improves role and gap reasoning, but an explicit strength-calibration policy is systematically over-conservative and falls below majority and direct-LLM baselines. To explain why, we run a controlled diagnostic across three closed-model backbones (GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet, Gemini Flash) that separates three potential causes of conservatism. Approximately 63% of the conservatism gap is attributable to expanding the label space from binary {moderate, weak} to four-way {moderate, weak, uncertain, insufficient_evidence} (p < 0.001 across all backbones); only 1% is attributable to gap/scope signal injection (not significant); the remaining 36% arises from the pipeline policy itself. We also find that 4-way predictions can be post-hoc collapsed back to binary and then match or exceed direct binary prompting, so the extra labels carry information that strict matching hides. Label-level strength judgment and auditable evidence organization are distinct abilities currently in tension, and should be evaluated separately for LLM research assistants.