Kiera McCormick

Alina Hyk, Kiera McCormick, Mian Zhong et al.

There is growing interest in leveraging LLMs to aid in astronomy and other scientific research, but benchmarks for LLM evaluation in general have not kept pace with the increasingly diverse ways that real people evaluate and use these models. In this study, we seek to improve evaluation procedures by building an understanding of how users evaluate LLMs. We focus on a particular use case: an LLM-powered retrieval-augmented generation bot for engaging with astronomical literature, which we deployed via Slack. Our inductive coding of 368 queries to the bot over four weeks and our follow-up interviews with 11 astronomers reveal how humans evaluated this system, including the types of questions asked and the criteria for judging responses. We synthesize our findings into concrete recommendations for building better benchmarks, which we then employ in constructing a sample benchmark for evaluating LLMs for astronomy. Overall, our work offers ways to improve LLM evaluation and ultimately usability, particularly for use in scientific research.

Kiera McCormick, Rafael Martínez-Galarza

Large Language Models have demonstrated the ability to generalize well at many levels across domains, modalities, and even shown in-context learning capabilities. This enables research questions regarding how they can be used to encode physical information that is usually only available from scientific measurements, and loosely encoded in textual descriptions. Using astrophysics as a test bed, we investigate if LLM embeddings can codify physical summary statistics that are obtained from scientific measurements through two main questions: 1) Does prompting play a role on how those quantities are codified by the LLM? and 2) What aspects of language are most important in encoding the physics represented by the measurement? We investigate this using sparse autoencoders that extract interpretable features from the text.