Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 6, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automating data science workflows. Benchmarks such as DataSciBench (2026) and StatQA (2024) have advanced the evaluation of their capabilities across data science and statistical tasks. Assessing their reliability requires examining both the quality of their responses and their consistency across repeated runs, task types, and difficulty levels. With this aim, we introduce DS-QA, a benchmark comprising 100 data science and statistics questions drawn from UK university courses, spanning 16 datasets and three difficulty levels. We develop a three-layer evaluation framework that combines general response properties (runtime, verbosity and text similarity), coarse-grained metrics (accuracy, code executability and completeness), and task-specific metrics. We evaluate OpenAI models using a Monte Carlo protocol with 100 repeated runs. The results reveal substantial variability in responses to data visualisation and supervised learning tasks, particularly at medium and hard difficulty levels, highlighting the importance of evaluating consistency alongside response quality. We also find that an increase of 0.1 in the word verbosity ratio corresponds to an increase of about 0.013 in the token verbosity ratio.