← 返回全部开发案例
开发阶段案例 · 模型盲评尚待独立人工复核,不代表正式 Benchmark 结论。
自动补全两组均不可用31 / 162 · 364ed65b4abf2883

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

定量生物学 · 2402.01439v1

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

怎么判断 Evidence 真的有帮助?

核心问题是:在同一写作位置、使用同一模型和任务时,提供检索文献片段会怎样改变首次输出?我们成对比较两种条件,保留持平、不可用和评审未完成的结果。

同一段原稿 · 比较是否提供 Evidence

01 · 固定写作位置

论文原稿

同一处写作点位 ▌

同一原稿位置的自动补全成对比较

02 · 构造两组输入

两组共用

原稿上下文、模型、任务和提示词

A · 提供 Evidence

额外提供检索文献片段

B · 不提供 Evidence

不提供检索文献片段

LLM

同一模型、同一版本

A → 首次输出

B → 首次输出

盲评 Agent

匿名标记两份首次输出为 X、Y

按续写质量判断:准确性、任务贴合度和可用性
输出:X 更优 / 持平 / Y 更优 / 两组均不可用

换序复评:X / Y → Y / X

盲评具体怎么判?

① 匿名两份输出
评审看到同一原稿和两份首次输出,但不知道哪份用了 Evidence。

② 比较并换序复评
根据当前任务的标准,按 X/Y、再按 Y/X 的顺序各评一次。

③ 复核分歧
两次结论不一致时再做第三次判定;未完成的评审也留在分母。

自动补全点位怎样分层?

在查看生成结果前,先核查检索片段是否含有能直接支撑下一步续写的具体命题;有则放在左侧机会组,否则放在右侧普通组。每个学科从可准入论文中均衡选取两组点位。50/50 是实验设计,不代表真实写作中两类点位各占一半。

AUTOCOMPLETE · 110

定量生物学、统计学、天体物理学

左侧 55 个、右侧 55 个点位;统计学采用 10 篇论文的复测结果。

AUTOCOMPLETE · 52

心理学与气候科学

左侧 26 个、右侧 26 个点位;心理学计入 9 篇,气候科学计入 4 篇。

表格里的百分比怎么算?

五学科共有 81 个左侧点位,其中 51 个点位的 Evidence 版本获评更优。持平、两组均不可用和评审未完成的点位仍计入分母。

51Evidence 版本更优
÷
81该层全部点位
=
63%该层 Evidence 获评更优的比例

来源贡献是另一项复核:已进入复核的 22 个 Evidence 获胜点位中,16 个确认直接使用了检索论文;另有 29 个胜出点位尚待复核。

当前是开发阶段的模型评审结果,尚未完成独立人工复核;这些数字不代表正式 Benchmark 结论,也不能单独证明因果关系。

原稿写作位置

原文摘录 · 非 PDF 页面

研究论文 · 原文片段

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

1 Introduction

Humans understand and describe their environment using natural language, which reflects the complexity of human thought. The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) marks a significant advancement in artificial intelligence, showcasing remarkable abilities in various domains. These models excel at understanding and generating complex text, making them crucial for tasks that demand deep textual analysis and creation.

…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.

↓ 此处生成下一段续写

黄色标出写作点位附近的原文;本页根据评测输入重排文本,不是原始 PDF 截图。

同一写作位置的成对对照盲评结果:两组均不可用

两组使用同一模型、同一写作任务和原稿上下文,仅比较是否提供检索文献片段。下方展示评测记录中的首次输出。

Evidence

同一模型与写作位置 · 提供检索文献片段 · 首次输出

盲评判定不可用

This survey reviews the emerging landscape of LLM applications in chemistry, organizing existing approaches by the chemical tasks they target and the modalities they employ. We first examine how molecular representations are adapted for language models, then survey applications spanning property prediction, retrosynthesis, and molecular generation, before discussing the open challenges that remain.

提供给 Evidence 版本的文献片段

BioMedGPT: Open Multimodal Generative Pre-trained Transformer for BioMedicine

Safety : While large-scale language models serve as a novel technique, their generated outputs are determined by a certain probability distribution, resulting in unforeseen dangers of generating bias, discrimination, or harmful content. Though we have endeavored to reduce the potential risk of BioMe…

展开完整文献摘录

Safety : While large-scale language models serve as a novel technique, their generated outputs are determined by a certain probability distribution, resulting in unforeseen dangers of generating bias, discrimination, or harmful content. Though we have endeavored to reduce the potential risk of BioMedGPT by fine-tuning on meticulously curated English biomedical corpus, it is hard to fully eliminate this problem. It is essential to ensure the responsible and ethical use of BioMedGPT. While BioMedGPT is endowed with expertise in biomedicine and chemistry, we emphasize that it should NOT be employed for research scenarios that endanger human life, and any further real-world applications should undergo cautious and professional supervision and comprehensive experiments.

无 Evidence

同一模型与写作位置 · 不提供检索文献片段 · 首次输出

盲评判定不可用

未输出续写正文。

模型动作:complete

模型盲评结论

模型盲评判定两边都不可用;这与“持平”分开统计。

查看模型评审原始理由(英文)

Output A provides a coherent academic paragraph that continues the manuscript's flow, transitioning from the conceptual parallel between chemistry and language to a survey structure. However, it contains unsupported claims: it describes a specific survey structure ('organizing existing approaches by the chemical tasks they target and the modalities they employ,' 'molecular representations,' 'property prediction, retrosynthesis, and molecular generation') that is not grounded in any supplied source. The draft discusses general conceptual parallels and challenges but does not establish that this paper is a survey with these specific sections or that these particular chemical tasks are covered. The source provided (BioMedGPT) discusses safety concerns and biomedical/chemistry expertise but does not support any of the specific survey content in Output A. Output B is empty when the task clearly needs content (a coherent academic paragraph), making it unusable. Despite A's unsupported claims, B is completely empty and thus fails the basic task requirement. However, per instructions, any output with unsupportedClaim=true must have usable=false. Re-evaluating: Output A has unsupportedClaim=true, so usable must be false. Output B is empty when content is needed, so usable=false. This leads to both_unusable.

文献片段是输入材料;出现于此不代表输出使用了它,也不代表它能够支持全部主张。原文与检索片段经过截取;页面没有展示模拟分数或模拟 PDF。