Maria Tikhanovskaya

Haoyu Guo, Maria Tikhanovskaya, Paul Raccuglia et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise as a powerful tool for scientific literature exploration. However, their effectiveness in providing scientifically accurate and comprehensive answers to complex questions within specialized domains remains an active area of research. Using the field of high-temperature cuprates as an exemplar, we evaluate the ability of LLM systems to understand the literature at the level of an expert. We construct an expert-curated database of 1,726 scientific papers that covers the history of the field, and a set of 67 expert-formulated questions that probe deep understanding of the literature. We then evaluate six different LLM-based systems for answering these questions, including both commercially available closed models and a custom retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system capable of retrieving images alongside text. Experts then evaluate the answers of these systems against a rubric that assesses balanced perspectives, factual comprehensiveness, succinctness, and evidentiary support. Among the six systems two using RAG on curated literature outperformed existing closed models across key metrics, particularly in providing comprehensive and well-supported answers. We discuss promising aspects of LLM performances as well as critical short-comings of all the models. The set of expert-formulated questions and the rubric will be valuable for assessing expert level performance of LLM based reasoning systems.

Hao Cui, Zahra Shamsi, Gowoon Cheon et al.

Scientific problem-solving involves synthesizing information while applying expert knowledge. We introduce CURIE, a scientific long-Context Understanding,Reasoning and Information Extraction benchmark to measure the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scientific problem-solving and assisting scientists in realistic workflows. This benchmark introduces ten challenging tasks with a total of 580 problems and solution pairs curated by experts in six disciplines - materials science, condensed matter physics, quantum computing, geospatial analysis, biodiversity, and proteins - covering both experimental and theoretical work-flows in science. We evaluate a range of closed and open LLMs on tasks in CURIE which requires domain expertise, comprehension of long in-context information,and multi-step reasoning. While Gemini Flash 2.0 and Claude-3 show consistent high comprehension across domains, the popular GPT-4o and command-R+ fail dramatically on protein sequencing tasks. With the best performance at 32% there is much room for improvement for all models. We hope that insights gained from CURIE can guide the future development of LLMs in sciences. Evaluation code and data are in https://github.com/google/curie

Haining Pan, Nayantara Mudur, Will Taranto et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated an unprecedented ability to perform complex tasks in multiple domains, including mathematical and scientific reasoning. We demonstrate that with carefully designed prompts, LLMs can accurately carry out key calculations in research papers in theoretical physics. We focus on a broadly used approximation method in quantum physics: the Hartree-Fock method, requiring an analytic multi-step calculation deriving approximate Hamiltonian and corresponding self-consistency equations. To carry out the calculations using LLMs, we design multi-step prompt templates that break down the analytic calculation into standardized steps with placeholders for problem-specific information. We evaluate GPT-4's performance in executing the calculation for 15 research papers from the past decade, demonstrating that, with correction of intermediate steps, it can correctly derive the final Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian in 13 cases and makes minor errors in 2 cases. Aggregating across all research papers, we find an average score of 87.5 (out of 100) on the execution of individual calculation steps. Overall, the requisite skill for doing these calculations is at the graduate level in quantum condensed matter theory. We further use LLMs to mitigate the two primary bottlenecks in this evaluation process: (i) extracting information from papers to fill in templates and (ii) automatic scoring of the calculation steps, demonstrating good results in both cases. The strong performance is the first step for developing algorithms that automatically explore theoretical hypotheses at an unprecedented scale.