← Back to all development cases
This case was judged by an anonymized AI reviewer and has not been independently reviewed by people; inspect the draft, cards, and both outputs to assess it.
AutocompleteAbout the same16 / 280 · beu-db3eb4f83aeb0a8b

From Words to Molecules: A Survey of Large Language Models in Chemistry

Quantitative biology · 2402.01439v1

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we compare writing with and without cards?

At the same writing position, the same model produces one first result with cards and one without. All 280 pairs enter the overall anonymized review, which assesses whether a decision not to continue fits the draft.

Overall: 138 with-card wins, 26 ties, 107 no-card wins, 5 pairs where neither was usable, and 4 inconclusive judgments. Both sides wrote text in 218 pairs; 48 had a deliberate stop and 14 included an invalid output.

SAME DRAFT · WITH OR WITHOUT CARDS

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED VERSIONS

SHARED BY BOTH

Draft, writing task, and generation model

A · With cards

Relevant literature cards supplied

B · Without cards

No literature cards supplied

Generation model

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Anonymized AI judge

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Review again with the answer order swapped

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The AI judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received cards.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are positions and cards selected?

We selected 40 writing positions in each of seven fields, for 280 comparisons. The position and relevant literature cards were set before each comparison, so both versions began from the same draft.

The main result retains every frozen position, including places where cards might not add a useful next move. This avoids selecting cases based on their outputs, but 49% describes the whole cohort, not a win rate where evidence clearly had an opportunity to help. This cohort did not record that opportunity label for each position before generation, so those two groups cannot yet be separated reliably.

CARD USE · 140/280

Reported card use in continuations with text

The model reports whether a card affected its continuation. In 140 of 280 tests it produced continuation text and reported card use. The previous count of 150 included 10 cases without continuation text and has been corrected.

COMPARISON · 70 / 7 / 30

Which written version was better?

Of the 107 reported-use cases where both versions produced text, the blinded AI judge preferred the with-card version 70 times, found 7 about the same, and preferred the without-card version 30 times.

How are the two table percentages calculated?

ADOPTION COVERAGE

140reported use with text
÷
280all positions
=
50%

WITH-CARD VERSION PREFERRED

70with cards better
÷
107comparable tests
=
65%

The percentages use different groups: 50% counts continuations with text reporting card use among all 280 tests; 65% covers the 107 such cases with text on both sides. The generating model reports card use, while an anonymized AI judge compares writing quality.

Card use is self-reported by the generator. The anonymized AI judge sees the draft and source snippets, so source-aware preference remains possible; there was no independent human review. The overall result describes these 280 frozen positions, not a win probability for any writing task.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

From Words to Molecules: A Survey of Large Language Models in Chemistry

1 Introduction

…similar to how syntax operates, while molecules are formed within specific physical constraints, echoing the principles of grammar. This parallel suggests the potential for encoding chemical information into LLMs in a manner comparable to natural language. Despite the conceptual parallels, the languages of chemistry and human communication differ substantially in their semantics. Consequently, incorporating chemical knowledge into LLMs presents a complex challenge, with numerous approaches being explored to leverage LLMs in the field of chemistry, making it a subject of considerable interest.

…d specifically on the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the field of chemistry. Xia et al. 2023 comes closest with a systematic survey on chemical pretrained models, encompassing LLMs along with pretrained models in other modalities such as graph and image. However, this survey primarily addresses the general objectives and utilization of pre-trained models and overlooks the nuanced application paradigms of LLMs, treating them primarily as representation learners. This perspective neglects the unique ways LLMs can be integrated into chemical research, as illustrated in Figure 1 .

To differentiate our work from Xia et al. 2023 , we summarize our contributions as follows: 1. We provide a comprehensive review of tokenization methods for molecular sequences, categorizing

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionOverall AI review: About the same

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Read overall AI review rationale

A = with cards · B = without cards

Both outputs complete the unfinished sentence in a functionally identical and appropriate manner. The draft begins 'categorizing' and both outputs provide the natural completion: a three-way categorization (character-level, fragment-level, and hybrid approaches/schemes) followed by a statement of analysis. The only difference is 'approaches' (A) versus 'schemes' (B), which are synonymous in this context. Both fit the academic register, maintain parallel structure with the list format, and appropriately scope the contribution as a review/categorization task. Neither introduces unsupported claims—the categorization is standard for tokenization literature and the analysis of 'advantages and limitations' is a conventional academic move. The sentence is complete after either output and does not require continuation.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

them into character-level, fragment-level, and hybrid approaches, and analyze their respective advantages and limitations.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · Developing ChemDFM as a large language foundation model for chemistry

Artificial intelligence (AI) plays an increasingly important role in chemical research. However, most models currently used in chemistry are specialist models for specific tasks. A more generic and efficient solution would be an AI model that could address many tasks and support free-form dialogue i…

Read full passage excerpt

Artificial intelligence (AI) plays an increasingly important role in chemical research. However, most models currently used in chemistry are specialist models for specific tasks. A more generic and efficient solution would be an AI model that could address many tasks and support free-form dialogue in the broad field of chemistry. In its utmost form, such a generalist AI chemist could be referred to as chemical general intelligence. Large language models (LLMs) have recently logged tremendous success, showing emerging task generalization and free-form dialogue capabilities. However, domain knowledge of chemistry is largely missing when training general-domain LLMs, greatly hindering their performance in chemistry. To this end, we developed ChemDFM, a pioneering LLM for chemistry trained on 34 billion tokens from chemical literature and fine-tuned using 2.7 million instructions. As a result, it can understand and reason with chemical knowledge in free-form dialogue. Evaluations show that …

Card 2 · What can Large Language Models do in chemistry? A comprehensive benchmark on eight tasks

Large Language Models (LLMs) with strong abilities in natural language processing tasks have emerged and have been applied in various kinds of areas such as science, finance and software engineering. However, the capability of LLMs to advance the field of chemistry remains unclear. In this paper, ra…

Read full passage excerpt

Large Language Models (LLMs) with strong abilities in natural language processing tasks have emerged and have been applied in various kinds of areas such as science, finance and software engineering. However, the capability of LLMs to advance the field of chemistry remains unclear. In this paper, rather than pursuing state-of-the-art performance, we aim to evaluate capabilities of LLMs in a wide range of tasks across the chemistry domain. We identify three key chemistry-related capabilities including understanding, reasoning and explaining to explore in LLMs and establish a benchmark containing eight chemistry tasks. Our analysis draws on widely recognized datasets facilitating a broad exploration of the capacities of LLMs within the context of practical chemistry. Five LLMs (GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Davinci-003, Llama and Galactica) are evaluated for each chemistry task in zero-shot and few-shot in-context learning settings with carefully selected demonstration examples and specially crafted p …

Card 3 · Harnessing the Power of LLMs in Practice: A Survey on ChatGPT and Beyond

This paper presents a comprehensive and practical guide for practitioners and end-users working with Large Language Models (LLMs) in their downstream natural language processing (NLP) tasks. We provide discussions and insights into the usage of LLMs from the perspectives of models, data, and downstr…

Read full passage excerpt

This paper presents a comprehensive and practical guide for practitioners and end-users working with Large Language Models (LLMs) in their downstream natural language processing (NLP) tasks. We provide discussions and insights into the usage of LLMs from the perspectives of models, data, and downstream tasks. Firstly, we offer an introduction and brief summary of current GPT- and BERT-style LLMs. Then, we discuss the influence of pre-training data, training data, and test data. Most importantly, we provide a detailed discussion about the use and non-use cases of large language models for various natural language processing tasks, such as knowledge-intensive tasks, traditional natural language understanding tasks, natural language generation tasks, emergent abilities, and considerations for specific tasks.We present various use cases and non-use cases to illustrate the practical applications and limitations of LLMs in real-world scenarios. We also try to understand the importance of dat …

Card 4 · Large Language Models and Foundation Models in Smart Agriculture: Basics, Opportunities, and Challenges

The past decade has witnessed the rapid development and adoption of ML & DL methodologies in agricultural systems, showcased by great successes in agricultural applications. However, these conventional ML/DL models have certain limitations: they heavily rely on large, costly-to-acquire labeled datas…

Read full passage excerpt

The past decade has witnessed the rapid development and adoption of ML & DL methodologies in agricultural systems, showcased by great successes in agricultural applications. However, these conventional ML/DL models have certain limitations: they heavily rely on large, costly-to-acquire labeled datasets for training, require specialized expertise for development and maintenance, and are mostly tailored for specific tasks, thus lacking generalizability. Recently, large pre-trained models, also known as FMs, have demonstrated remarkable successes in language, vision, and decision-making tasks across various domains. These models are trained on a large amount of data from multiple domains and modalities. Once trained, they can accomplish versatile tasks with just minor fine-tuning and minimal task-specific labeled data. Despite their proven effectiveness and huge potential, there has been little exploration of applying FMs to agriculture AI. Thus, this study aims to explore the potential o …

Card 5 · Structured Chemistry Reasoning with Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in diverse areas, yet struggle with complex scientific reasoning, especially in the field of chemistry. Different from the simple chemistry tasks (e.g., molecule classification) addressed in previous studies, complex chemistry problems require not only vast knowled…

Read full passage excerpt

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in diverse areas, yet struggle with complex scientific reasoning, especially in the field of chemistry. Different from the simple chemistry tasks (e.g., molecule classification) addressed in previous studies, complex chemistry problems require not only vast knowledge and precise calculation, but also compositional reasoning about rich dynamic interactions of different concepts (e.g., temperature changes). Our study shows that even advanced LLMs, like GPT-4, can fail easily in different ways. Interestingly, the errors often stem not from a lack of domain knowledge within the LLMs, but rather from the absence of an effective reasoning structure that guides the LLMs to elicit the right knowledge, incorporate the knowledge in step-by-step reasoning, and iteratively refine results for further improved quality. On this basis, we introduce StructChem, a simple yet effective prompting strategy that offers the desired guidance and substantially boosts the LLMs …

Model-reported card use

The model did not report that any card materially affected this completion.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

them into character-level, fragment-level, and hybrid schemes, and analyze their respective advantages and limitations.

Earlier card-use comparison

The earlier diagnostic compared only cases with reported card use and text on both sides; its scope differs from the overall AI review above.

This case does not have both with-card continuation text and a model-reported use record. It remains among all 280 tests but does not enter the reported-use comparison.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.