Watts If? A Benchmark for Counterfactual Reasoning About the AI Data Center Buildout

An AI data center is committed years before it draws a watt: a few discrete choices (grid or on-site gas, evaporative or dry cooling, which county to file in) fix its capital, water draw, and carbon path, and LLMs are now asked to help screen them with no test of whether they track what each commitment rules out. It comes from a paper posted to arXiv on 17 October 2026. We introduce DCBench-440, with two arms reported separately: 200 generative questions over STRIPS worlds for five US deal archetypes, with search-verified gold answers and no tested shortcut above 12% on any question type, and 240 multiple-choice questions grounded in quoted site records, emission equations, and stated scenarios. Across open-weight deployments, accuracy spans 12.5-71.5% (generative) and 58.3-92.5% (multiple choice). One skill fails everywhere: asked to list every action available at a decision gate, no model exceeds 4.0% exact match. The strongest list 72-85% of the actions that would change the project's state but omit most permitted actions that change nothing; with those excused, the best exact match is still 24%. Code, data, and other materials are available upon request.

Why it counts

We introduce DCBench-440, with two arms reported separately: 200 generative questions over STRIPS worlds for five US deal archetypes, with search-verified gold answers and no tested shortcut above 12% on any question type, and 240 multiple-choice questions grounded in quoted site records, emission equations, and stated scenarios.

Sources

Primary source: primary source

What is not known

This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.